Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

World Population

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this morning's debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) to the debate. It is an unexpected pleasure to see him on the Front Bench, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) usually deals with overseas aid matters.
It is a great privilege for me, as chairman of the all-party group on population, reproductive health and development, to initiate a debate on such an auspicious day—the eve of World Population Day.
Our group owes a great deal to the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who founded it in 1978 and was its president from 1983 until his death this May. I send my sympathies and that of the group to his widow. He was an inspiration to the entire world population movement, and we shall miss his wise counsel greatly.
You will know, Madam Speaker, as you take an interest in the subject, that our group is extremely active on a cross-party basis in both Houses. We have organised European parliamentary conferences, and recently a workshop at which my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker delivered a keynote speech. I am delighted to say that, as a result of that conference, we are now in contact with several European parliamentary groups. I hope that we will be able to help them form several similar groups.
No issue is more important than population and reproductive health. Approximately 1 billion people in the developing world—one fifth of the world's population—live in abject poverty. Successful reproductive health programmes could eliminate some of that unnecessary and cruel suffering. My noble Friend Baroness Chalker said in her excellent Rafael Salas memorial lecture recently:
it would be a scandal if the people of the OECD countries who consume 75 per cent. of the world's resources failed to help the poor.
I agree entirely.
It took 123 years, up to 1870, for the world population to reach 1 billion. Today, the figure is 5.83 billion, and unfortunately it will take only another 11 years for a further 1 billion people to be born. The action we take now will determine the severity of the problems that our

children will face in the forthcoming millennium. If we do nothing now, the trend will continue inexorably upwards towards 12 billion in the following millennium.
Absolute numbers are not the real problem. Many of the world's worst problems stem from unsustainable population growth, which can lead ultimately to wars such as those in Rwanda and Burundi, as well as drought, famine, hunger, unscientific farming methods and—most importantly in the coming decades—water shortages.
What is to be done? There have been significant changes in population policies over the past few years. The Cairo United Nations conference in September 1994 was a landmark, in that 189 countries agreed a global action plan which in essence provides an unprecedented framework for all people to seek and enhance, freely and responsibly, their own health and well-being.
The conference affirmed the universal right to sexual and reproductive health, and upheld as a core principle freedom from discrimination or coercion in all such matters. Such principles and rights have, of course, been affirmed many times in the past—indeed, there is a United Nations convention on discrimination, which many countries have signed—but they were reaffirmed at that highly successful Cairo conference.
Rather than viewing people as mere numbers and objects of Government policy and politically motivated ideals, which often occurred before the conference, the international community has made a gigantic commitment to individual people and their development. Thus, a programme for action includes ensuring universal access to reproductive health care, the need to reduce poverty, promotion of economic development, provision of education and basic services for everyone, and improvement of women's status.
The fourth United Nations conference on women in Beijing in 1995 further endorsed the commitment to women's right to control their own fertility. My noble Friend Baroness Chalker, who so often leads the world's thought processes on such issues, said at that conference:
We will carry forward the principles set up in the Platform, including the aim of ensuring that all women, regardless of age, ethnicity, religion, disability, or other characteristics, have equal opportunities, choices and rights.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The same issues were debated at the Habitat conference in Istanbul in May. Women's sexual and reproductive health rights are firmly integrated into the international agenda in order to achieve better quality of life for all.
If anything encapsulates this morning's debate, it is that desire for better quality of life for all. If we are in politics for anything, it is to improve the quality of life of our people, and to give to those who have least in the rest of the world. "Children by choice, not chance" is the accepted aim of almost 200 nations, but it should be enshrined in every nation's constitution. Indeed, the slogan should be enshrined in the heart of every Minister and Government official.
I must sound a word of caution. As a committed Christian, it gives me no pleasure whatever to say that, when so much positive action is being taken throughout the world and so much good has come from the United Nations conference, which was organised with such care, it is disappointing that efforts to address some of the serious issues are being hampered by the Vatican's


negative attitude. No one condones any coercive practice, including abortion, but it is wholly questionable for the Vatican, which occupies only official observer status at the United Nations, to pursue its outdated views on voluntary family planning and artificial contraception at every turn.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Before my hon. Friend moves on from his erudite litany of what is happening around the world, will he deprecate the appalling practices in China, which are well recorded and have been going on for 60 years? In the 1920s, an aunt of mine adopted two girl babies who had been thrown out to die, and similar practices are still going on.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am absolutely delighted that my hon. Friend has raised that issue. I join him in wholly deprecating not only the practices in China, which are some of the worst in the world, but any coercive practice anywhere in the world. Some of the scenes in China, especially those filmed in such programmes as "The Dying Rooms" and its sequel, are wholly abhorrent and totally unacceptable. I share his sentiment. None of the non-governmental organisations involved in China would in any way condone what the Chinese Government are doing, and it is appropriate that some of the western NGOs are helping that country to promote better practices. I hope that they will continue to do so.
I should like to describe some of the problems that the world faces. About 585,000 women die each year as a result of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth—99 per cent. of them in developing countries. That is an appalling amount of suffering. Around 120 million women do not wish to become pregnant, but have no access to any family planning advice or services. There are 20 million women who have unsafe or coercive abortions each year, which results in tens of thousands of deaths, millions of disabilities and a quite unacceptable amount of suffering.
The effect of voluntary contraceptive provision on reducing reliance on abortion is dramatic. For example, in Russia, the abortion rate per thousand women aged between 15 and 49 was 108.8 in 1990, 8.88 per cent. of whom used contraception. As the use of voluntary contraception rose steadily to 23.59 per cent. in 1994, the rate of abortion fell to 83 per thousand women in 1994, as would be expected. That is extremely good news, and if it could be replicated elsewhere, as it is in Latin American countries and many parts of Asia, it could dramatically reduce the number of unsafe births.
Conversely, it is estimated that a 35 per cent. cut in United States funding for family planning, leaving some 7 million couples without access to any contraceptive methods, could lead to an additional 1.6 million abortions—often in very unsafe and unsavoury conditions—as well as millions more unwanted pregnancies.
I know that some subjects are difficult to discuss in the House, but it must be recognised that more than 100 million women, mainly in Africa, have been subjected to genital mutilation. Such treatment is abhorrent. Will the Minister explain what conclusions have been reached in Government-funded research on the best way in which to change people's attitude to such an

abhorrent practice where it occurs? If he cannot give me the answer this morning, I should be grateful if he would ask his officials to write to me in due course.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend any evidence of the prevalence of the practice in this country? I understand that it takes place here.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The short answer is no, although I would not be surprised if it occurred in some corners of our inner cities. Female genital mutilation is a tribal practice, and I am sure that some extremely small ethnic minorities have brought it into this country. If it does occur here, I hope that the authorities will root it out everywhere, and try to educate people who are practising it about its unsavoury, unsatisfactory and abhorrent nature.
Approximately 15 million girls aged between 15 and 19 give birth yearly. Pregnancy and childbirth are the main causes of death in that age group, and 20 per cent. of infant deaths—this is a staggering statistic—could be averted if all births were at least two years apart. By 2000, about 40 million people will be HIV-positive—mostly in Africa and Asia. Education and proper information on health and contraception could considerably reduce that figure.
The total cost of attaining universal integrated reproductive health care for all in the developing countries and the economies in transition is estimated to be $17 billion by 2000, rising to $21.7 billion by 2015. Those are large figures, but it is estimated that up to two thirds of that amount should and could be provided by the countries themselves. I wish to focus on the other third.
The United Nations for Population ActivitiesUNFPA—target of Governments' allocation of only 4 per cent. of overseas aid, which would meet the cost of that universal access to reproductive health services, has so far been committed only by Norway and the Netherlands. The UK's allocation stands at a credible 2.3 per cent. As a result of lobbying by our group and others who deal with the matter, that figure has almost doubled over the past two years.
Will the Minister tell our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker that we are extremely pleased that our arguments have been recognised by the Government? We are not asking for any more money. Many people with different causes ask for more money, whereas we merely ask for a reallocation of the aid we already give. As I shall show later in my speech, that can be an extremely effective way of giving aid to the third world.
In sharp contrast to the Overseas Development Administration, which committed £184 million in 1994 to the end of 1995, thereby doubling its funding over the past five years, the United States Congress cut 35 per cent. from the population and family budget of the US Agency for International Development, the largest supporter of such programmes in the world. The measure was part of a foreign appropriations Bill attached to the legislation to prevent another Government shutdown, and was signed by President Clinton.
It is now clear that the £17 billion needed by the year 2000 will not be met. That is a tragedy, because the universal demand for family planning and reproductive health will suffer enormously as a result. The UK


Government, as well as many other Governments and donor agencies, need to review their contribution in that vital area.
I hope that my hon. Friend will also press for an improvement in funding in Europe, the United States and many other industrial nations. We need urgently to increase the proportion of overseas aid budgets devoted to that issue.
The group has been dismayed to learn that the cut in USAID's funding budget has led to United States NGOs taking 50 per cent. of the ODA's United Kingdom seedcorn funding in 1994–95. The US NGOs establish branches in London and then compete for our additional seedcorn funding. It is unfair that foreign NGOs are allowed to compete for that seedcorn and core funding, whereas ours are not allowed to do so because they are deemed to be already in existence.
But the newly established NGOs are simply affiliates of already existing NGOs in the United States. I urge my hon. Friend to look at that matter, because, although our aid agencies may be able to tolerate it in the short term, in the longer term the effectiveness of British NGOs will suffer. That would be a tragedy, because the British NGOs that deal with population problems are some of the most respected in the world.
The group has consulted its sister group in the European Parliament, in both London and Brussels. The EU has set a post-Cairo spending target of some 300 million ecu on population and reproductive health programmes by the year 2000. However, the EU does not have a single coherent instrument for funding population-related programmes. Its highly cumbersome system for gaining access to funding, with several aid provisions relating to different geographical and sectoral agreements, is often exceedingly complicated for NGOs to pursue. The UNFPA-sponsored Marie Stopes International recently produced a useful handbook on European support mechanisms for population and reproductive health programmes, which sheds some light on the Byzantine complexities within the Commission.
Do the Government intend to press, at the next Overseas Council, for simplification of that system? If funding cannot be accessed because of the system's complexities, it seems wrong that it then disappears in the next financial year. There should be a process for bidding for it, even if it is not used in the current financial year, so that it can be used the following year, especially as the whole programme is committed up to the year 2000.
Of particular concern is the dearth of qualified reproductive health staff in Europe in relation to the budget and the number of applications for funding. It was exceedingly welcome news when the ODA was able to attach one of its experts to the Commission, but family planning and reproductive health services still need to be greatly strengthened with committed experts within Europe.
Earlier this year, I visited the Planned Parenthood Association of Thailand, and witnessed an example of one of the most effective NGOs in the world, which receives some funding from the International Planned Parenthood Federation in co-operation with the Thai Government. It performs an outstanding service to people in that developing country.
As an example of that NGO's efficiency, it employs a full-time staff of only 123 people, but has organised an effective volunteer force of 30,000 people. Staff members

go to remote villages and find the most responsible and respected person in the community. They recruit him or her as a volunteer to organise their family planning programmes and education in his or her village. That person not only speaks the language, but is part of the local culture.
I was lucky enough to go to one of those family planning clinics on the Thai-Burma border. I met tribeswomen who had walked 70 km that morning, many of them barefoot with a young child at their heels, to get to the family planning clinic. They had come to the clinic without their husbands' knowledge. I was able to talk to them through an interpreter. When I asked why they had come, they said that it was because they wanted only one child. When I asked why, they said, "Because we are so poor. You can see from the clothes that we and our children are in—no shoes on our children's feet—that we cannot afford to feed more than one child."
Those women sat in rows watching in a disciplined fashion a video on the need for further education and health planning services. They then lined up in an orderly way to have their cards examined to see when they last attended the clinic. They were referred to the doctor if they or their child had a problem. If they had no problem, they were referred to the nurse for a three-monthly contraceptive injection or whatever other family planning services they wanted. If the volunteer in their village said that they were too poor, they did not have to pay the 25p that everyone else had to pay. That is an example of what the best family planning and education in the world can do.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Socialism.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend says that it is socialism. It is not. Those people walked to the clinics of their own free will. They would not have walked 70 km if they did not want to improve their lot. I spoke to those women, and did not see the fear in their eyes which I have seen in the eyes of people in other parts of the world. I have seen people in refugee camps in Pakistan with no arms and legs who are in real fear of their lives, and one can see it in their eyes.
Those women had smiles on their faces, and welcomed the contact with the more stable lowland population, which was also there in a different group. They were enjoying their morning out, and there was a little market next door for those who could afford to buy things.
The result of that excellent programme is that Thailand has a population increase of about 1 per cent. per year and a stable population of about 50 million, whereas the Philippines, which started similar programmes in the beginning of the 1970s, now has a population of about 80 million and double the rate of population increase—2 per cent. That is an example of what can be done, and it shows us why this debate is so important.
I should like to be able to conclude on a positive note. Since 1950, life expectancy in the developing countries has increased. Family planning has increased from 10 to 50 per cent. Since the 1960s, and, above all, more couples are choosing when to have their children. They have control over their lives; they can have a family when they want it. On average throughout the world, quality of life is improving, even in some of the poorest parts of the third world, although there are pockets where life is still getting worse.
The slogan "Children by choice, not chance" should be emblazoned on every Government and every official throughout the world, especially in the third world.
It would set a wonderful example to the rest of the world if Britain became the first large western nation after Norway and the Netherlands to meet the target of 4 per cent. of overseas aid devoted to population and reproductive health issues. It would require no extra money, merely a reallocation of the existing budget. All other types of overseas aid are merely fire brigade actions—they are merely remedial for the problems that have already been encountered by unsustainable development. Aid devoted to population programmes is preventative, and if we met the 4 per cent. target, it would be the best possible bequest to future generations in the next millennium.
I urge the Minister to consider seriously the reallocation of this aid budget, which would set a dramatic example to the rest of the world. If Britain, which is acknowledged as one of the leaders in this field, were to meet the 4 per cent. target, I have no doubt that many other countries, especially some of the richer and emerging countries, such as Japan and some of the south-east Asian nations, which contribute very little to population reproductive health programmes, might thereby be encouraged to come in and contribute.
That would help to meet the £17 billion of unmet need—not a huge amount of money worldwide—give universal access to family planning and education programmes to all in the world, and reduce the unnecessary suffering, some of which I have described.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you and Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise this subject.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to take part in an important debate, and I understand the depth of sincerity with which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) presented his case. I am not altogether sure that the simple slogan "Choice, not chance" is fairly representative of a Christian conviction, because I still believe that there is a sense in which children are a gift; that emerges from the Old Testament and the experience of many of us, and one is concerned at times to think that modern science believes that scientists can dictate the terms of how children might be born.
I am also aware that we live in a world where we use language to soften what we mean. Some folk might think that I am intellectually challenged or physically disadvantaged, but we must examine some of the definitions that are given, and today I want to consider, in the context of the debate, the definition of "reproductive health" given by the World Health Organisation in its "Technical Definitions and Commentary" prepared for the international conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994:
Reproductive health implies that people are able to have responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed of and to have access to safe, effective,

affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.
There is much in this definition that everyone would applaud, but I want to consider briefly the meaning of the term "fertility regulation". The World Health Organisation has provided an official definition:
Fertility regulation is the process by which individuals and couples regulate their fertility. Methods that can be used for this purpose include, amongst others: delaying childbearing, using contraception, seeking treatment for infertility, interrupting unwanted pregnancies and breast-feeding.
"Interrupting unwanted pregnancies" is simply, in my understanding, a euphemism for abortion on demand. It is clear that "reproductive health", according to the official WHO definition, includes abortion on demand.
In that context, we must place on record the fact that our Government's Overseas Development Administration, under the noble Baroness Chalker, has an obsession with "reproductive health" in its international aid programme, which I believe is positively unhealthy.
The ODA, in a briefing paper entitled "British Aid for Health and Population" published in May 1995, states:
Through
its
aid programme Britain is working to promote human development through better education and health, particularly reproductive health".
The next paragraph states:
Central to the ODA's health and population strategy is a commitment to ensure access for people most in need to essential health care, particularly reproductive health care".
However, a powerful leading article published in The Lancet in July 1995 last year, although plainly in favour of abortion and other forms of birth control, made a strong attack on the notion that "reproductive health" should be at the top of the international health agenda. The article states:
Yet health is defined in a surprisingly one-dimensional manner; it seems to exist in a reproductive context only. When seen through the lens of fertility control, the notion of 'health' is distorted beyond all recognition".
The article argues that women's reproductive health needs are in fact the social tool through which the aims of population control are being met. It continues:
One does not have to be either 'conservative' or 'extremist' … to question the assumptions on which the reproductive health and family planning 'movement' is based".
The article concludes:
The new colonialism of the international women's health agenda is a dangerous strategy. It places western utopianism before local pragmatism … Equality means far more than achieving the right to reproductive health".
That obsession with reproductive health is nowhere more evident than in the massive multi-million pound annual grants to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, with which our Government "work closely" in this matter.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House, by voting for what is virtually abortion on demand, has set an exceptionally bad example, and does he regret, as I do, the fact that we have made life very cheap in this country?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the hon. Lady's views. One evening, as a result of confusion in the House, we


actually increased the age for abortion to an unacceptably high level, especially in the light of medical opinion, when it could have been reduced with greater effect.
I feel strongly about this issue. In Northern Ireland, the major political parties and religious faiths are opposed to abortion on demand. We are well aware of the abortion-promoting policies of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which held a symposium in Northern Ireland in November 1994. The British Medical Journal reported:
Delegates called for a number of options to be pursued, including extending the 1967 Act to the Province, opening an abortion clinic as a challenge to existing legislation, attempting to introduce a private member's bill, and taking a test case to the European Court.
In Northern Ireland, an abortion can be performed if a doctor believes that it is in the interests of the woman's health and is a necessity—we do not have the open-door policy that was introduced by the Abortion Act 1967, and which has been broadened in the recent past.
The IPPF report, under the heading "Rights of Young People", said that abortion, sterilisation and contraception should be made available to children aged 10 and upwards without parental knowledge or consent. We should be strengthening the family, but if we put blocks between parents and children, that will not happen. When a child faces a particular problem, however difficult, the parents should be made aware of it so that they can give guidance—they should not be ignored.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with care. Parents should give guidance, but it is often lacking. If parental guidance is lacking, someone has to provide sexual education. If it were not for the work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and others in the third world, there would be no education on which people could make sophisticated and proper choices. I hope that the hon. Gentleman focuses on some of the positive work that is going on in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the world, and does not focus his entire speech on one negative aspect—abortion.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am redressing an aspect of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am amazed that, in a western democracy, we talk about people in developing countries being able to make sophisticated choices. With all the sophistication of our western democracy, we have not dealt with this problem. It has been said that the only place that children can get sex education is in school—and, to some degree, I accept that that is accurate. However, because of the emphasis on sex education—it is also on our televisions—children are experimenting at an earlier age than ever before. The emphasis should be on restraint, not on encouraging children to experiment at an early age.
Why is an organisation that is openly committed to obtaining abortion on demand—whatever the views of national legislatures and parents—receiving millions of pounds from the British taxpayer in the name of reproductive health? It received £11 million in 1993–94 and £6.5 million in 1994–95.

Mr. David Alton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the past two weeks, the

European Parliament has unanimously passed a resolution, proposed by the Labour party, opposing coercive population measures? In particular, it criticises the British Government's China policy. In China, it is illegal for a person to have a brother or a sister. That law is aided and abetted, and collaborated with, by money provided by British taxpayers.
In the course of his speech, will the hon. Gentleman seek clarification in this regard from Members on the Labour Front Bench, who have made it clear that they will continue to fund the programmes?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was extremely long.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Members on the Labour Front Bench heard the question asked by the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that they will clarify the situation. No doubt some people want to restrict their family to one and are delighted to do so.
A letter from Baroness Chalker to The Times of 12 May 1995 claimed:
Neither the British aid programme, nor IPPF"—
which receives grants through the aid programme—
backs coercive family planning or abortion programmes.
However, the IPPF's publication shows that Baroness Chalker's statement is incorrect. According to its People magazine—Volume 1, No. 1, 1989, page 20—volunteers working for the China Family Planning Association, an affiliate of the IPPF,
sometimes collect the occasional fine when a couple breaks the birthplan rules".
According to Baroness Chalker's Department:
IPPF does provide some financial support to the China Family Planning Association. IPPF expects CFPA to exercise a beneficial influence on the implementation on China's population policies in a number of ways.
Does this "beneficial influence" to which the ODA refers extend to collecting occasional fines from couples who dare to have a child unauthorised by the Chinese authorities?
I return to where I began: in an age when we use nice definitions to cover up what we are talking about, when we speak of reproductive health, we should emphasise the need for health care and guidance for families and parents. Money should not be given to terminate the lives of those who have great potential.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on taking over from his predecessor, our hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). If my memory serves me correctly, we had a similar debate in the House this time last year.
I shall examine further the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I refer to a letter from Baroness Chalker's office at the Overseas Development Administration to Mrs. Phyllis Bowman of the Society for


the Protection of Unborn Children, which was written just before the Cairo conference on population and development in 1994. It stated:
The ODA position on population and reproductive health is not to support population control.
The word "not" is underlined. However, this emphatic statement, expressing Government policy, needs to be examined very closely. In addition, I propose to examine the ambiguity in words and phrases that are used in debates on this matter—they can be extremely misleading.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the World Health Organisation's official definition of the term "reproductive health" in its "Technical Definitions and Commentary", which was prepared for the international conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994. The definition states:
Reproductive health implies that people are able to have responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed of and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.
There is much in the definition to applaud. However, we should examine the language it uses.
What is meant by the term "fertility regulation"? In the same paper, the WHO provides its official explanation. It states:
Fertility regulation is the process by which individuals and couples regulate their fertility. Methods that can be used for this purpose include, amongst others: delaying childbearing, using contraception, seeking treatment for infertility, interrupting unwanted pregnancies and breast-feeding.
"Interrupting unwanted pregnancies" is a euphemism for abortion on demand, which we have in this country at present. Therefore, according to the official WHO definition, it is clear that reproductive health includes access to abortion on demand. It is there in black and white.
The WHO's official definition of reproductive health is enormously significant, and the implications must be clearly understood. It explains why developing nations attending the Cairo conference on population and development fought so hard for language in the final Cairo document which seeks to restrict the international promotion of abortion. Section 8.25 of the Cairo programme of action begins:
In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning".
The Cairo document also upholds the sovereign right of nations to determine their own abortion legislation according to their national culture, beliefs and traditions.
Last month in Istanbul, at the United Nations conference on human settlement, despite the intense pressure brought to bear by the United States and the European Union, the G7 nations stood firmly against including several reproductive health references in the final document. They allowed only one such reference, on the basis that it must be understood according to the restrictive language agreed in Cairo.
I know from my contacts with non-governmental organisations that attended the United Nations conference in Istanbul how the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at that gathering was deeply appreciated by the representatives of developing and Islamic nations. Referring to the "culture of death", my right hon. Friend spoke about
the street children who disappear, the old and the young who die when they could have lived, the babies whom we kill before they have a chance to live".
Developing nations were greatly encouraged to hear a strong Christian voice speaking unexpectedly from the heart of Europe.
It is extremely disturbing that, again and again, the Minister for Overseas Development and her Department promote reproductive health, without any qualifications or restrictions as regards abortion, as the top priority in Britain's overseas aid spending. However, they declare at the same time that the ODA is not directing its efforts towards population control.
I noted earlier that some concern was expressed about parts of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who suggested that population control is the most important policy for the third world, whereas it was felt that further expenditure in the third world should be devoted to policies other than those that my hon. Friend outlined.
We learn from an ODA briefing paper that the organisation has committed £100 million over two years to improving access to family planning and to extending reproductive health. It works closely with international bodies such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. In an answer given to the noble Lord Braine of Wheatley in another place, the Minister said that the United Kingdom grant to the UNFPA increased from £10.5 million in 1993–94 to £11.25 million in 1994–95.
Proponents of funding the UNFPA often quote its assurances that the agency does not support abortion programmes anywhere in the world. The UNFPA does make that claim, but it has also proclaimed repeatedly that China's population programme is purely voluntary. In spite of years of documented evidence of forced abortions and forced sterilisations in China—not least, evidence provided by the US Department of State—in an interview on CBS "Nightwatch" in November 1989, the UNFPA executive director, Mrs. Nafis Sadik, said:
The implementation of the policy (in China) and the acceptance of the policy is purely voluntary.
In an exclusive interview with China's official news agency on 11 April 1991, Mrs. Sadik said:
China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth over the past 10 years. Now the country could offer its experiences and special experts to help other countries.
Bearing in mind an earlier intervention about the policies in China and the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I invite him to join me in condemning that statement, which is contrary to the views that he expressed. According to the UNFPA's annual report for 1988, its on-going activities in China include participation in the State Family Planning Commission.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether that organisation has produced any figures for the number of partial birth abortions occurring in China at present?

Mrs. Winterton: That is an interesting point, but I cannot reply to my hon. Friend. I shall make some inquiries in that regard. That practice is completely repugnant to most informed people, and it would be disastrous if it were carried out in China—although I would not be surprised, in view of the forced abortions and sterilisations that occur in that country, which everyone must abhor.
As I said, the UNFPA's activities include participation in the State Family Planning Commission. Its headquarters oversees enforcement of the nationwide one-child programme and the funding of
national training facilities for family planning professionals and family planning administrative personnel".
They are the commissioned officers who enforce the coercive abortion and sterilisation population policies. I should not be surprised to learn that partial birth abortions are part of China's population control programme—its policies are certainly horrific enough to include that.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady has made a good point about partial birth abortions, but is she also aware that, last year in China, laws were passed that allow handicapped babies, who have been born, to be killed merely because they are handicapped? That is not just forced abortion or partial birth abortion, but infanticide.

Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful for that intervention. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment included that practice in the culture of death that he mentioned in his speech in Istanbul. That may be emotive language, but it is highly descriptive, and it reflects the true position. I cannot believe that anybody who considers himself or herself to be civilised can support that policy of killing handicapped children. It is indeed infanticide.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will have heard that, earlier in the debate, I condemned the practices in China in the strongest possible terms, but I hope that she is not suggesting that no western NGOs should be involved in reproductive and family planning activities in China. Surely that would be naive, because we are trying to influence the Chinese Government to introduce better practices. The experts in the field, such as the UNFPA, are trying to promote proper practices in China.

Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he has been sucked in by those organisations, just like everybody else. Nobody objects to the aims and objectives of voluntary family planning, as long as people work with the culture of a country and what the people want, but everyone—including my hon. Friend, who made a forceful speech—must realise that those organisations, as I have spelt out in my speech, are working hand in hand with the organisations in China that implement other, abhorrent, policies.
My hon. Friend must get his friends to clean up their act, wash the blood off their hands and be honest for a change, instead of being disingenuous with the facts. When he does that, I will respect his view and the views of others who agree with him. Until then, I shall believe that my hon. Friend, like his predecessor, is exceptionally naive.
It should be recognised that the UNFPA is a major funder of another abortion programme—the human reproduction programme of the World Health Organisation. That project is heavily involved in funding clinical studies on RU486, which is a pill used—especially in France—to abort women who are between five and seven weeks into pregnancy. Both the WHO and UNFPA officials say that they intend to perfect the abortion pill as a back-up method of birth control for women in less-developed countries, who will be used as guinea pigs.
The 1993 UNFPA report, on page 17, states:
UNFPA continues to support projects that link family planning with income generating activities for women".
That report makes it clear that, if women want to get help with setting up micro-enterprise projects, they must accept family planning services, and that the UNFPA must ensure that family planning services are available to meet the demand generated by the projects. The funding for the way out of poverty, through economic activity, for those women will be provided only with the quid pro quo that they restrict the number of children they have. They may even be required to have no children.
How can we justify the fact that the ODA made a grant to the UNFPA of more than £11 million in 1994–95, when we know that women in developing countries, including China, are being put under tremendous pressure to accept birth control? Would the ODA find similar practices acceptable in Britain, or are we supposed to be different from the women in developing countries?

Mr. Martyn Jones: In the couple of minutes left to me by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), I shall try to make one or two points. I had hoped to make more, but unfortunately time is against us. It is entirely appropriate that our debate is taking place on the eve of World Population Day, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on initiating the debate.
I pay tribute to Lord Houghton, the founding chairman of the all-party group on population, reproductive health and development, who died in May this year at the age of 97. At his ripe age, he was well aware of the concept of sustainability, and his distinguished career bears testimony to his commitment to others. He will be much missed.
Some hon. Members will know that my personal expertise is as a biologist, and that led me to become involved in the all-party group. Since my involvement, I have become much more aware of the interconnectedness between the environment and every aspect of Government policy—not only the UK environment, but the international environment—and I am pleased that that fact was recognised in Labour's recent manifesto publication.
Wanted children are a gift, but unwanted children can be a curse. On a global scale, as a biologist, I know that the population of any organism that does not have predators or any in-built mechanism to control its growth will ultimately destroy itself by disease, starvation or both.
World population and reproductive health issues are at a critical stage. According to Population Concern, the global urban population is growing at a rate roughly


equivalent to eight cities the size of London each year. Migration from the countryside accounts for 40 per cent. of the annual increase in urban populations, and, within a few years of the new millennium, more than half of the people of the world will live in cities, but one third of today's citizens, some 600 million people, do not have the means to meet their basic needs.
As one might expect, women and children make up the largest sector of those who suffer such colossal deprivation. Therefore, services such as health and education help in the fight to escape poverty.
According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, some 585,000 women die every year as a result of pregnancy and childbirth, many in the third world. Some 120 million women do not want to be pregnant, but have no access to contraception. As we heard, by 2000, 40 million people will be HIV-positive, and more than 300 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases occur annually.
As we have also heard, in sharp contrast to the United Kingdom—which committed £184 million to its budget in 1994, thereby doubling its funding over the past five years—the US Congress cut 35 per cent. from the population and family planning budget of the US Agency for International Development, which had been the largest supporter of such programmes in the world. The measure was part of a foreign appropriations Bill, and was attached to legislation to prevent another Government shutdown, signed by President Clinton.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury rightly said that £17 billion will be needed by 2000 to meet the universal demand for family planning and reproductive health, but it is clear that that need will not be met. The United Kingdom Government, and many other donor Governments, need urgently to review their contributions to that vital area.
Population stability is the single most important issue facing the human race. If we, as intelligent beings, do not attain it ourselves, war, famine and disease will, and they will touch all countries, including those of the west. I urge the Government to commit more funds to that vital issue, and to press the United States to restore its funding as a matter of urgency.

Mr. George Foulkes: I also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), not just on obtaining the debate, but on his election to the chairmanship of the all-party group on population, reproductive health and development, of which I am also a member. Last year, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, we had a debate initiated by the previous chairman of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Unlike other hon. Members, I shall not repeat what I said on that occasion.
I also wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and others in paying tribute to our late friend Lord Houghton, who founded the all-party group, and who died recently at the age of 97. Some months ago, I heard him speaking in the House of Lords on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, and he was full of vigour and eloquence. He is a loss for us all.
As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, we now face the fastest growth in human numbers in history which, it is widely recognised, will result in serious economic, environmental and political problems in the developing world. As the hon. Gentleman said, the issue was discussed in Cairo, Beijing and Istanbul at successive UN conferences. However, with growth at an all-time high of 90 million people annually, the increase must be tackled by a sustained programme of education and family planning. It is encouraging that the international community is responding and that the ODA is playing a pivotal and positive role. I find myself adopting an unusual posture in congratulating the ODA and the Government on their initiative and work.
In September 1994, at Cairo, there was an unprecedented agreement among 189 countries in producing a global action plan. The following year, at Beijing, the United Nations conference on women endorsed the Cairo commitment to women's rights to control their fertility and their families. At the Habitat conference at Istanbul, the issue was discussed again in the context of growing populations within cities. That conference endorsed previous statements.
Family planning, reproductive health and female education are some of the best available aid investments. I disagree with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury only to the extent that they are not the only preventative areas of aid. Other areas of investment—for example, irrigation—can prevent hunger or starvation, and I would like to see more moneys directed to them. I accept, of course, that family planning, reproductive health and female education are some of the best aid investments available. That has been recognised throughout the international community. The Labour party has supported the ODA in its efforts and negotiations.
Perhaps it would not be me—it might surprise Conservative Members too much—if I did not have one little criticism of the Government. The Labour party recognises the lead that the ODA has taken, but that must be seen in the context of a declining overall aid budget. I am pleased that the Minister of State will speak on behalf of the Government, and I remind him that Baroness Chalker, who speaks in the other place on overseas development, has fought a doughty fight on behalf of the overseas aid budget.
Unfortunately, the Treasury has won the battle, and we have a declining overall budget. The target of 4 per cent. of the ODA's budget which, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, has been worked towards by the United Kingdom, has not been reached. Instead, we are contributing 2.3 per cent. of a declining budget. That is not as spectacular as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Pressure must be put on our partners to ensure that they do not give up in the developing world. We must not give in to the lobby that has sought to cut development funding. It is unfortunate that media attention and the overall agenda are persistently diverted from the real issue at hand.
As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury rightly said—the hon. Member for Congleton did not take up the matter—5 billion people are in abject poverty throughout the developing world. It is clear that the cost of attaining universal integrated reproductive health care


for all in developing countries, including those with economies that are in transition, will not be met. As the House knows, the overall cost amounts to £17 billion.
Aid budgets are declining. For example, the United States is reducing its funding of family planning projects. An end to the upsurge of the world's population is not nearly in sight. Populations will not level out for many years to come. Over the next decade, 94 per cent. of the increase in the world's population will be in the developing world. The prospects for some countries are extremely daunting. For example, the World bank's demographers tell us that Nigeria's population will rise from 100 million now to an eventual 382 million before stabilising in the year 2100. Tanzania's population is predicted to increase fivefold, from about 25 million to 116 million.
The work of all NGOs is supported by the Labour party, and I make no apology for that. We support the Government's contribution to the UN Fund for Population Activities, to the International Planned Parenthood Federation and to the World Health Organisation. These organisations and the British NGOs have shown over many years the benefits that their work has brought to the developing world.
I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who told me that he had to leave the Chamber, to the hon. Member for Congleton and to others, including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), that the Opposition do not support coercive policies in China or elsewhere, and neither does the IPPF. However, the IPPF, by working in China, can bring pressure to bear from within to try to improve the situation. There are, of course, many other human rights problems in China. We must work to ensure that China introduces improvements in a wide range of areas.
It is no use criticising the IPPF because of what is happening in one of the countries in which it operates. Multilateral organisations such as the IPPF have played a crucial role. I am especially pleased that the European Union has set a post-Cairo target of 300 million ecu to be spent on population and reproductive health programmes.
It is well documented—I understand that the ODA recognises the position—that access to funding is convoluted and difficult. It is a process that puts a severe strain on small budgets and the administrative capacity of NGOs. I hope that the Government will make representations to the EU to try to simplify the procedure of obtaining access to funds.
Reducing population growth in the developing world is but one important factor in the battle against poverty. There may be no intrinsic benefit in a reduction of the world's population, but our primary concern must be the alleviation of grinding abject poverty. To that end, the consumption of scarce resources must be considered against the background of a growing population.
That should not detract, however, from the duty of the industrialised world towards developing countries. It is incumbent on any population programme to aim, in the context of a wider strategy, to tackle poverty generally. Family planning and health education are basic human rights. The ODA has taken a proactive stance, and one which the Opposition wholeheartedly support. We shall do so when we form the next Government after the next general election.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): It is a great pleasure for me to be able to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I agreed with an enormous amount of his contribution to the debate. It is a pity that he spoilt his speech with his last sentence. We cannot, of course, expect a perfect speech from the Opposition Benches.
I do not have long in which to respond to the debate, but I must add my tribute to the admirable work of the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and extend my sympathy and that of the Government to his widow. His work is well known, and it contributed enormously to the advances that have been referred to this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on his chairmanship of the all-party population, development and reproductive health group, and on the excellent and lucid way in which he presented his comments on a complex range of issues.
We cannot over-emphasise the importance of responding to the world population and reproductive health issues. In the hour and a half that we have spent in discussion this morning, the world's population has grown by a further 16,000. We know that 95 per cent. of the growth of the world's population is in the developing world, which is the least well equipped to cope with the consequences. The United Nations has recently estimated that, in the 50 years between 1970 and 2020, 93 per cent. of the world's urban growth will take place in the developing world.
More and more people want to plan their families, have fewer children and give them a better start in life. At least 200 million couples are not able to have access to the contraceptives they want when they want them. The services for millions more leave much to be desired. If these demands cannot be met, the world's population will grow to 17 billion—three times its present level—in the next century. If they are met, we can hope to stabilise the world population at about 12 billion, which may well be manageable.
Stabilisation of the world's population will improve prospects for sustainable development. Well-designed human development initiatives contribute to children by choice, not chance, and smaller families. Human development means education, health and opportunities for women. It means also placing individuals at the centre of development.
Governments should enable men and women to be able to choose when and in what circumstances to have children; they should not control, compel, deny or disempower them. That is an important part of the equation, which has been stressed this morning. Such an approach means providing women and men with education, skills and resources to enable them to make informed decisions and choices, and then designing and providing services in ways that best fit the needs of the clients, not merely the administrative convenience of the suppliers.
In many countries of the developing world, childbirth remains an acutely hazardous experience—and unnecessarily so. As my hon. Friend said, new estimates from the UN suggest that almost 600,000 women die each year in pregnancy and childbirth for lack of ready access to basic care. For every woman who dies, possibly 30 more incur injuries and disabilities that can be lifelong.
The focus of our policy for reproductive health is therefore on meeting unmet demand for accessible and reliable family planning services, to improve access to, and the quality of, all aspects of reproductive health services, and to make giving birth safer.
Since the ODA launched its "Children by choice, not chance" initiative in 1991, that phrase has become commonly used by others around the world. It means a number of clear goals, which we all share: giving people the ability to exercise choice about the size of their family, and the spacing and timing of the birth of their children; striving to ensure that family planning services are affordable, acceptable and accessible to all who need and want them; improving the quality of family planning advice, information and education; enabling women to go through pregnancy and childbirth more safely; and enabling people to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and one of their major consequences, infertility.
Those goals and that philosophy were encapsulated in the programme of action agreed at the international conference on population and development in Cairo, in 1994, which defined the international agenda for future work. The Cairo programme calls for reproductive health care for all and sets new standards for care and services that individual women and men should be able to access. It challenges everyone—Governments, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and donors—to meet these standards.
How are we as a donor responding to the challenge? Since we launched "Children by choice, not chance", ODA expenditure on population and reproductive health initiatives has more than doubled, from £26.5 million in 1991 to £62.3 million in 1995. I think that that defuses the comments and criticism made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.
We are indeed increasing the amount of assets that we are putting into this very important task. After Cairo, we pledged ourselves to make commitments of £100 million in the two years following. In fact, we more than fulfilled that pledge, committing ourselves to more than £184 million. One hundred and twelve new projects were approved in 1994 and 1995. The United Kingdom will remain one of the largest bilateral donors in this field.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although our multilateral aid to these programmes is important, our bilateral aid to Europe is also very important? Will he respond to the point that I made earlier and implore the Council of Overseas Ministers to simplify access to the funding systems?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. We feel it very important to simplify the EU mechanisms, and we are, of course, a major contributor to the EU funds, as well as to the bilateral funding.
There are, of course, a variety of channels—bilateral, multilateral, NGO—and each has its part to play. We have remained a strong contributor to the United Nations population fund—UNFPA—the main UN agency for helping to implement national programmes of

reproductive health. Our annual contributions have risen from £7 million in 1993 to £10 million in 1995. We remain a major supporter of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and its network of family planning associations, contributing £7.5 million in the past financial year. We are also a major contributor to the programme of reproductive health research undertaken by the World Health Organisation.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), neither the UNFPA nor the IPPF in any way recommends or accepts abortion as a method of birth control.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Both those organisations may say that they do not accept it, but the practice continues. I suggest that practice should match the words.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend has been here long enough to know that no Government can work miracles. It is our intention to move steadily towards that objective. For example, we will not be able to change the habits and practices of the Chinese overnight, but the invaluable work that the UNFPA and the IPPF do in China is helping to move it away from the horrific practices of the past.

Mrs. Winterton: indicated dissent.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend shakes her head, but it is a fact that the situation in China is improving, albeit at nothing like the speed that we would like. We must target our aid and try to persuade people to drop practices with which we thoroughly disagree.
We are also working hard within the EU. The European Community has pledged to spend 300 million ecu—about £250 million—by the end of the century. We shall develop close relationships with the Commission and press it hard and urgently to ensure that it simplifies its systems so that the work can be done even more efficiently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said that seedcorn funding was US-biased. It is not. There is no bias of any kind towards any source of application for funding. Judgments are made solely on the basis of the quality of the proposal.
Of the commitments made to date, United Kingdom groups have obtained by far the largest share in terms of the number of projects and financial support. Two thirds of the projects are from UK organisations, and a similar proportion of committed funding goes to UK groups. All the applications currently under consideration are from UK-based applicants; none is from US groups or their UK affiliates, so I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we are addressing that problem adequately.
My hon. Friend also spoke about female genitalia mutilation. That is, of course, an appalling practice, and we shall do our best to stop it, but the problem is that it is an extremely difficult area for us to approach, because it is rooted in deeply held religious principles. Many people who practise it do not fully understand the damage that it causes. We feel that the most important action we can take is through health training, explaining the enormous health risk involved, and weaning them off that practice. Again, that cannot be done overnight, and it must be approached sensitively.
A question was asked about the Vatican. We work closely with the Vatican, and share many of its objectives. We both agree that it is important to be able to have children by choice. As the Vatican puts it, to have or not to have children is something that anybody should have the right to decide for themselves. There are areas of disagreement with the Vatican's policy, but we hope that we can reach agreement with it and, over the years, work towards our common objectives, without allowing those differences to intervene too badly in the way in which we undertake our tasks.
My hon. Friend also mentioned United States foreign assistance budgetary aid. We are, of course, deeply concerned about the large cut to the project that the US appears to be making. I am afraid that the amount of help that we shall be able to give will be severely affected by such a cut. We can only hope that the United States will, like us, get over any Treasury limitations that may get in the way, and give the amount of aid that it would wish to give. We think that it will still be giving some $300 million a year, so there will be a substantial pot, but nothing like as large as we have enjoyed recently.
We shall continue to promote new ways to ensure that people have better access to information about reproductive health issues, and to ensure that they are aware of the types and standards of services they are entitled to expect from service providers, whether through Government or non-governmental sources.
Above all, we need to turn around the traditional balance of power. For too long, questions about the quality, quantity and mode of service provision have been cast in terms of what the suppliers of services can or cannot, will or will not, do. There is a need more explicitly in future to base judgments and decisions about services on what best meets the needs of the consumer of those services. We need approaches that allow the exercising of choice by consumers to determine the style and shape of service delivery. It is beginning to happen slowly. We shall look to support further development and testing of such approaches.
I have a slight disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on two points. I do not agree that the percentage of aid budget should be the criterion that we should watch most closely.
We have just said that the United States budget is likely to be slashed. It would be a pity if we cheered because the percentage of the budget spent on this aspect may have improved. It is the total amount we need to spend that matters, not the percentage that it may represent. However, our spending is an improvement on the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley: it has risen from 2.3 per cent. to 3 per cent., and we did not do that by cutting the budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was rather dismissive about other overseas aid projects. I do not agree with him. We do an enormous amount of good through the ODA and our other aid budgets, and we must not concentrate on one issue, however important it may be.

Unemployment and Low Income (Wales)

11 am

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for giving me a chance to raise this important issue.
It falls to me, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, to welcome this morning's good news about the LG company from Korea, which intends to build two new factories near Newport in south-east Wales. I understand that the factories will cost £1.7 billion and are likely to create more than 6,000 jobs. This is the largest inward investment project ever to come to the United Kingdom, and possibly anywhere in the world. I unreservedly congratulate the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Office and everyone else concerned.
Perhaps we should schedule debates of this kind for every Wednesday, so that announcements such as that can be made. To conquer unemployment in Wales, however, we should need 18 such Wednesday mornings in succession. That calculation is based on the official unemployment figure—between 60,000 and 70,000 people are not officially recognised as being unemployed. We welcome the news, although one swallow does not make a summer.
Unemployment—the reality or the threat of it—has been a scourge in Wales since the first world war. Between the wars, Welsh unemployment ran at well above 20 per cent. In 1935, it rose to more than 55 per cent. in my old home area of Merthyr Tydfil, and to 80 per cent. in the north end of the valley in Dowlais. No one pretends that the current problem is anywhere near as bad, but it is a serious problem in most parts of Wales, and it is substantially worse than the Government are prepared to admit.
The continuing problem of endemic unemployment is the key to why Wales has a lower income per head than any other country or region in Britain. What is the current unemployment level in Wales? The Government claim that it is about 107,000—8.4 per cent.—but that is after all the massaging of figures that has taken place during the past 17 years of Conservative government. The labour force survey statistics published by the unemployment unit suggest that the true level is nearer 168,000. The survey covers everyone who is out of work and wants to be in work, including elderly workers whom the Government have removed from the register, and married women who want to return to work but who are excluded from the Government's statistics. A number of other groups have also been excluded by the Government.
A generation ago, Plaid Cymru warned that, owing to the rundown of the coal and steel industries, there was a danger that 176,000 people in Wales would be unemployed. We now face a figure of that order. Unemployment is not just a general problem; it is a chronic problem in certain Welsh localities. In Aberdare, the unemployment rate is 13.4 per cent. That is the lower rate, relating to the total work force. In Merthyr and Rhymney, it is 12.1 per cent.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: That is an underestimate.

Mr. Wigley: All the figures are underestimates. They are probably around 60 per cent. of the true figures.
In south Pembrokeshire, the figure is 12.3 per cent.; in Holyhead, it is 11.8 per cent.; in my home area of Caernarfon and Bangor, it is 10.6 per cent. In Ammanford, 1,400 people are registered as unemployed—a quarter of the unemployed population of Carmarthenshire. Those figures disguise other changes, such as the fall in the number of workers in full-time employment.
Some of the figures are staggering. In 1981, there were 37,000 full-time employees in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands); by 1992, the figure had fallen to 29,900. In Aberdare, the figure fell from 12,400 to 9,500. In the Pontypridd and Rhondda area, it fell from 47,700 to 41,200. In Llanelli, it fell from 23,500 to 19,800. Over the same period, there has been a fall in full-time employment, an increase in unemployment and an increase in part-time working. The drop in full-time employment is serious, and is one of the factors that contribute to the low level of income in Wales. Statistically, however, it is offset by the increase in part-time working.
The fall in employment has a depressing effect on average incomes. It is also a serious social problem. Unemployment causes hopelessness, particularly among young people. Youth unemployment is a critical problem in Wales. A third of those claiming unemployment benefit in Wales are under 25, and they are almost evenly spread throughout the country. In Port Talbot, the figure is 38 per cent.; in Rhondda and Merthyr, it is 36 per cent.; and in Rhuddlan in north-east Wales, it is 34 per cent., as it is in Cynon valley and my own area of Arfon. Throughout Wales—north, south, east and west—a stark problem confronts young people.
Long-term unemployment is another depressing factor. In Merthyr, 46 per cent. of unemployed people have been jobless for more than 12 months, and in Rhymney valley the figure is 40 per cent. In Newport, Cardiff, Swansea, Cynon valley, Ynys Môn and Arfon, it is 39 per cent. The problem exists in large conurbations as well as in less populous areas, and the pattern is remarkably similar throughout Wales.
Wales has youth unemployment, long-term unemployment, widespread unemployment and persistent unemployment. That has led to social exclusion and the creation of an underclass. It affects behaviour patterns, and reduces the standard of living and the quality of life. According to the 31st edition of "Regional Trends", which has just been published, it has also had an effect on average gross weekly household incomes. The figures are stark, and I hope that the Minister will note them.
In England, the average gross weekly household income is £376. It is £363 in Scotland, and £326 in Northern Ireland. In Wales, it is £283—25 per cent. below the English figure. Those statistics are in a Government publication.

Mr. Rowlands: Two other figures are worth noting. In 1981, the Welsh figure was 91 per cent. of the average; it is now down to 75 per cent., and that figure disguises even greater discrepancies. I have a sneaking, horrible suspicion that in most of our valley communities it is down to 70 per cent. of the English level. I do not think that the average in my community is anything like £283.

Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was going to say. I was going to quote Wales's being 10 per cent. below the English level in 1980 and the figure worsening to 25 per cent. below by 1994.
The drop appears to have been caused by more than one factor. The reduction in wages and salaries as a component of household income is clearly significant. They have decreased from 68 per cent. in 1980 to 56.7 per cent. in 1994. That reduction is clearly a major contributory factor to the problem.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's flow, but are not incomes falling because many of the jobs that come to Wales are attracted from countries that want cheap labour, and we have screwdriver jobs that mean Welsh people being paid poor wages?

Mr. Wigley: I will come to that as I take my argument forward. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Not only have wages and salaries gone down as a component of household income, but social security benefits, as a component, have increased noticeably—from 17 per cent. in 1980–81 to 22.5 per cent. by 1994–95. The social security element ties into the problem of long-term illness, which afflicts so many parts of Wales, particularly the old industrial parts—the old coal mining areas and the slate-quarrying regions that I represent—where industrial lung diseases have been one of the causes of long-term illness among the work force.
The 1991 census showed that, of the 10 counties with the highest number of households with long-term illnesses, eight were in the old coalfield regions of south Wales. That again contributes to the problems of higher dependence on social security payments and lower household income.
Those factors coincide with the fact that some parts of Wales have the lowest gross domestic product per head. In Mid Glamorgan, in 1993, GDP per head was only 62.5 per cent. of the UK average, the lowest of any county in Britain. It declined from 69.6 per cent. in 1991 to 62.5 per cent. in 1993. That is a staggering rate of deterioration. Those are Government statistics. GDP per head in Dyfed-Powys was 76 per cent. of the UK average and in Gwynedd, my own county, it was 77.9 per cent. of the UK average. That level is just not acceptable.
Understandably, the relative GDP per capita has decreased as a direct result of the factors that I have mentioned. In 1993, the GDP factor for Wales as a whole was 82.7 per cent. of the UK average—the lowest of any region or nation in Great Britain. That compares badly with our European partners, with which the Welsh Office has worked hard to try to develop links. In Lombardy, one of our motor region partners, average income per head is 31 per cent. above the European average, in Baden-Wurttemberg, it is 28 per cent. above the European average, and in Rhone Alpes, it is 8 per cent. above the European average. In Catalunya, it is 6 per cent. below the average, but in Wales, it is 16 per cent. below—the worst figure of all the motor regions by a mile.
In 1995, for the first time, Wales's GDP per head fell behind that of the Republic of Ireland. That was no doubt because of the success of the Irish economy and of the Irish Government, not only with their policies for


industrial development, but in the way in which they have been able to use the European Union. There must be lessons for us in Wales.
The British Government have an almighty legacy of mismanagement of the Welsh economy. Wales has dropped to the bottom of the league table. Today's good news about the LG project may slightly improve the position. It will take six years to complete, I understand, so we must wait some time for the improvement. I hope, however, that, because of the success of the project, there will not be any pressure from the Treasury, such as we have read of in recent weeks, to take powers away from the Welsh Development Agency or from Locate in Scotland, which would stop them working to secure such projects coming to Wales or Scotland.
Some people argue that Wales receives an unfair share of inward investment, but the Welsh work force's record is one of the reasons why we attract such companies. The grants that are available in Wales are on a par with those available in other regions of high unemployment. If such projects do not come to Wales, there is no guarantee that they will go to England—they could go to continental Europe or to the Irish Republic. I hope that the Minister will give a categoric assurance that there is no question of the WDA losing any of its powers in this sector.
I also ask for an assurance that, although financial resources will, understandably, be swallowed up by the LG project—which I do not decry—adequate financial resources will be available to the WDA to ensure that there is the necessary support for projects in other parts of Wales, where unemployment remains high and where we need support.
It is worth noting that pay levels are higher in Korea than in Wales—here I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). That may have been a factor in the decision to locate the project in Wales. So be it if that is the reason. We desperately need the jobs. It is sad that the location is regarded as a low-wage location, but jobs are necessary.
Wage levels in Wales are below the British average in some sectors. It is worth considering in what sectors. Perhaps I can carry the Minister with me on this. There is not all that much difference in average wage levels in the manufacturing sector as between Wales and England. The main difference is in the non-manual service sector, particularly in relation to men. In 1995, in the non-manual service sector, the Welsh average weekly wage for men was £375 and the British average was £441, a difference of £74 a week or 20 per cent. That is one of the key elements in the problem—37 per cent. of men working full time in Wales are paid below the Council of Europe's decency threshold of £228 a week. That again brings the problem into perspective.
The failure to develop producer services in Wales has led to a large element of the problem of low incomes and low wages. We have not been able to develop the producer services that should accompany new manufacturing projects. It is an important element in the depressed service wage levels that I have referred to. By producer services, I mean financial, computing, advertising and design—particularly computer design—services. There is an associated lack of investment in research and development in Wales, which could do much to improve the average.

Mr. Rowlands: And the servicing of manufacturing.

Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend mentions the servicing of manufacturing. The producer services involve all services relating to the manufacturing sector. We are getting many of the manufacturing jobs, but when companies need the services that sustain manufacturing jobs, they go outside Wales, and often those services offer the best-paid jobs. Industry in Wales is paying for those jobs in England, and that is not helping our economy.
Reversing the low concentration of producer service industries in Wales is one of prerequisites to raising incomes and creating more jobs in Wales. That is important in terms of identifying employment growth sectors. The Minister may care to study a recent Cambridge Econometrics publication, which analysed growth potential by sector between 1994 and 2000. It is revealing. In manufacturing, the growth in output does not mean a growth in jobs. That is important for the WDA's and the Welsh Office's strategy. For example, in the electronic sector, Cambridge Econometrics projects a growth in output of 40 per cent. over that six-year period, but a decline in jobs of 2 per cent. It projected an output growth in instruments of 23 per cent., but a 3 per cent. decline in jobs and an output growth in pharmaceuticals of 22 per cent., but a decline in jobs of 6 per cent.
It is not enough to look only at such manufacturing sectors, albeit they are growth sectors. They may not be delivering the jobs that we need, and existing companies may not sustain current jobs. Part of the analysis that was undertaken by Cambridge Econometrics was to contrast that with the producer services that are relevant to those industries. Computer services have a projected output increase over the six years of 33 per cent. and a jobs increase of 15 per cent. Professional services will have an output increase of 23 per cent. and a jobs increase of 17 per cent. while other business services will increase output by 22 per cent. and jobs by 20 per cent. A priority for Wales must be to develop those producer services and not just the manufacturing sector.
I should like to repeat words attributed to Brian Morgan, chief economist at the Welsh Development Agency, in the summer 1996 issue of "Agenda". He said:
If Wales is to continue its recent growth performance, we need to ensure that the innovation process is extended to encompass the high value added service sectors such as computer-aided design and software engineering. The distinction between manufacturing and service sectors is becoming ever more blurred, with the industrial sector outsourcing all but its key functions and employing increasing amounts of services. In working towards an integrated manufacturing and service economy, it will remain important to encourage more original research and development expenditure from existing firms and to speed up the diffusion rates of new technologies.
That is an important statement, and, given its source, I hope that the Welsh Office will apply itself to seeing how such lessons can be learnt.
The problem is that the Industry Acts are mainly related to developing manufacturing jobs, but the distinction between manufacturing and services, as Mr. Morgan stated, is becoming more and more blurred. We need a change in the industrial incentive system to enable the Welsh Office, the WDA and other job creation agencies to help with financial and other infrastructure development incentives to secure the manufacturing services that Wales needs. There will probably be a need to change industry legislation. I hope that, before the election, or certainly after it, that change will be made.
I shall draw the House's attention to other aspects of the Welsh Office and WDA job development strategies. The first concerns targeting policy as laid down by the Welsh Office. It has published a map showing two target areas for securing new jobs and inward investment in Wales. One of them is the M4 corridor which runs through south Gwent and ends at Bridgend; the other is the A55 corridor, although that is a misnomer because it runs only from the border into parts of Flintshire and around Wrexham. Only 10 per cent. of the land area of Wales is within those two target areas, while 60 per cent. of the unemployed of Wales are outside them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has just arrived in the Chamber, and I welcome him in view of the successful project that we have heard about today. There is now a need to direct more than 20 per cent. of the jobs coming to Wales to areas in the west such as Gwynedd and Dyfed or to the western parts of the old coalfield valleys if we are to overcome unemployment. Week after week, new projects come to the Newport area. I congratulate Newport—the best of luck to it—but we never hear about projects coming to the west. There has been a massive failure to attract inward investment projects to the old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed.
In 1994–95, some 46 inward investment projects came to Wales. Only three came to Gwynedd, and one came to Dyfed, and the total number of new jobs for both counties was 55. That is inadequate, and there must be a change of emphasis. That is equally applicable to the old coal mining valleys such as the Rhondda valley, Cynon valley and Amman valley, which are missing out. Sometimes we are told by those who are involved in attracting jobs to Wales that the western parts are too far from the markets, but Ireland has succeeded in getting 56,000 new jobs in two years and it is further from the markets. It is a matter of determination, and of ensuring that jobs come to areas in which unemployed people live. Wales can learn some lessons from Ireland, and I hope that we will learn them.
There is a danger that finance by the WDA and the Welsh Office will go into those two small pockets and that adequate resources will not be available. Am I being too cynical when I say that those two pockets are conveniently placed to help not only the jobless in those areas but jobless people in Bristol in the south and in Liverpool in the north? It is easier for people in Liverpool to travel to the target area in north-east Wales than for unemployed people in Holyhead to get there and, equally, it is easier for people in Bristol than for the unemployed people of Ammanford to come to Newport. I hope that I am not being too cynical, but I wonder.
The WDA must start to redirect its efforts. I emphasise that inward investment should be only a part of the armoury of job creation and sustainable economic development in Wales. We must maximise the creation of indigenous companies. Much of that has occurred in my area where, according to a Bangor university study, the television and film industry has created 2,000 jobs over the past 10 years. More help is needed for those with ideas, such as people who want to start small companies but who cannot get capital. I had an example only last week in my surgery. A person with an invention, which was a good idea, had a fair amount of support and some

capital, but he needed another £50,000 risk capital and could not locate a source. We need to help small people as well as the big fish in the international seas.
Another example of which the Minister is aware is the coal mining project in Carmarthenshire where, for an additional £100,000, about 20 new jobs could be created. The Government are unable to deliver such a small sum to get a worthwhile project off the ground. Small companies must be helped to expand. I sometimes get the impression that the WDA is much more interested in attracting the big names and the big headlines that go with them than in helping some of the smaller companies in Wales. I hope that that will be redressed.
Companies in Wales will need to source more of their purchasing there so that there is a better spin-off in the local economy. That leads me to public sector investment. Wales needs to be fibre-optic cabled to bring jobs to the rural areas and to cut unnecessary travel costs. It needs new schools, community hospitals, leisure centres and railway infrastructure. The roads also need to be made safer and all that requires public sector investment. Such projects can create jobs and improve the quality of life. However, the Government do not seem to be capable of making that happen. Road improvement schemes and water and sewerage schemes are often undertaken in areas of high unemployment, but the people who undertake them bring their workers with them from areas of lower unemployment. That scandal needs to be addressed by the Government.
There were redundancies recently in my local brickworks in Caernarfon. The labour force was virtually halved because there was a massive stockpile of bricks. How can that happen when there is a crying need for more bungalows for elderly people and for more starter homes? Wales produces bricks, windows, slates, timber and cement, but 20,000 building workers are unemployed. Do we not have the wit to solve one problem through solving the other?
I must warn about the possibly devastating dangers that face the rural economy as a result of bovine spongiform encephalopathy if the culling programme continues to the extent that has been talked about. Thousands of jobs could be lost in rural Wales, and the Welsh Office must find a way to help small farmers in these difficult times. One way to do that is to have a beef promotion campaign, perhaps in association with the Meat and Livestock Commission. There must also be support for farmers who are not necessarily losing animals through culling, but for whom prices have dropped, causing cash flow problems.
There is a challenge to maximise full-time jobs in tourism, yet because of the nature of our industrial development Acts, when there is a service—such as a laundry service in my constituency—with the potential to offer a couple of dozen new jobs and to do work in our area rather than send it out, financial assistance is not available so that the service can expand and provide those jobs. We must break down the artificial barrier between manufacturing and service.
What else needs to be done to remove the unemployment cancer that has affected so many communities in Wales? Plaid Cymru believes in full employment. I hope that Labour Front Benchers will tell us that they also are committed to a full employment programme—I have been a little concerned about their seeming to have stepped back from that commitment


recently. We believe that it is possible to make massive inroads into the unemployment problems in Wales, and that it should be a social priority to do so.
Last year, we published a blueprint of a scheme called "One Hundred Thousand Answers", showing how 100,000 jobs could be created in Wales. We started from the assertion that work needs to be done in every community in Wales and that potential jobs are staring us in the face. There is a need to provide adequate community care, to improve the physical environment and to control pollution. There is a need for energy conservation schemes and to insulate homes, which would not only reduce energy consumption but reduce bills for pensioners and disabled people.
We need to improve our public transport and to reduce dependency on cars. There is a need for lengthsmen in our rural areas to keep the roads tidy, and a need to develop training and apprenticeships. We need more help in our schools, hospitals and doctors' surgeries, where staff are grossly overworked.
We need help for our police forces. People in every part of Wales say that they want to see police on the beat in villages and towns, but they are not available. Jobs need to be done in the paramedical services—in physiotherapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy. We need more community nurses, bath nurses and home helps.
Work is available all around us. The Minister is aware that people from the voluntary sector were at Westminster yesterday to lobby us. They told me how they could create jobs that would be of benefit to the people with whom they work.
The fact is that there is work to be done in every community, and it is mainly labour-intensive work. The problem is that those who need the services do not have the financial resources to pay for it. Pensioners cannot afford to insulate their homes, disabled people cannot pay for more home help and voluntary organisations do not have the resources to employ more workers.
As a community, we are paying perhaps £80 a week to keep people on the dole. If we could pay them £160 a week at a minimum wage level, they could be doing that much needed work in all our communities. Yes, it would cost money. It would cost £4,000 a year per head in labour costs to bring them in to work. I accept that that could mean a couple of pence on income tax, although there are some other taxes—environmental taxes—that would help to finance such a programme. There is certainly a need for a reduction in employers' national insurance.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: My hon. Friend has touched on a point that has been given increasing prominence by the most progressive thinkers: the need to shift the burden of taxation away from taxation on employment to taxation on pollution and the waste of resources. Is not that really the key to designing an economy and a society in which employment is enhanced and a far more environmentally sustainable system is encouraged? Is not it also astonishing that that point was conspicuous by its absence from the Labour document that was published last week, "The Road to the Manifesto"?

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I, too, was surprised that that document contained so little reference to that point. My hon. Friend

is well aware that an Institute of Public Policy Research document has described the approach of introducing environmental taxes. The IPPR believes that 700,000 new jobs could be created in the United Kingdom with the introduction of such policies.
Work needs to be done, and there are people available who can do it. People require training, and that means more public expenditure. It means a couple of pence on income tax and some environmental taxes, but we believe that that price is worth paying to conquer unemployment, which is a cancer in our communities.
There is a stark choice facing Wales today. As a community, either we are prepared to pay a little more in tax so that we can pay people to work—rather than paying them to rot on the dole—or we accept the current cancer of unemployment, which is biting into every community in Wales, with all the concomitant problems of squalor, drugs, wasted lives, lost potential and decaying towns and villages. There is a price to pay, but there is also an enormous price if we ignore the problem. It is a moral choice, and Plaid Cymru is prepared to make it.

Mr. David Hanson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing this debate. It is a valuable exercise for us to discuss unemployment and low income in Wales. I shall much welcome the Minister's reply. I am pleased to see that the Minister in the Chamber. It is a pity that some other Conservative Members could not make it to the House to discuss an issue that is important for Wales.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: There are not that many of them.

Mr. Hanson: As the hon. Gentleman says, there are not that many of them, and I presume that some of them are on official duties.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I think that the hon. Gentleman is being a tiny little bit unfair. My colleagues are out winning for Wales—most obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Seoul today.

Mr. Hanson: I was not referring to the Secretary of State for Wales, because he is not a Welsh Member. I was referring to the Welsh Members—but there we go; not to worry.
I agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Caernarfon said. I was particularly interested in some of the capital projects he mentioned, which could be carried out and would be of benefit to Wales. Certainly in my own area, the electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead railway link would create jobs, improve the level of investment and provide greater attractions for inward investment to north Wales, in particular.
My own county of Flintshire is one of the few areas in Wales that does not have assisted area status, which causes us some difficulties. The fragility of the local economy is a fact that we must face daily. Only last week, Kimberley-Clarke, which is a major manufacturer in my constituency, announced a reduction in the Flint work force by 65 jobs. The economy of north-east Wales is still fragile and requires attention.
I was also particularly interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon on housing investment. There are 2,200 people on housing waiting lists in my constituency. Many people in Wales have the skills to build houses, and, as he said, there are companies there that make building materials, but still we cannot release capital receipts to build houses for local people, which would create local jobs and build a strong local economy. So much of what he said is valid.
Because we have so little time for the debate, it may be helpful if I focus on two specific issues: the need for a minimum wage and the increasing casualisation of work in Wales.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned income levels in Wales. There are now at least 12,000 people in Wales who earn less than £1.50 per hour for jobs done on a full-time or part-time basis, and at least 42,000 people earn less than £2.50 per hour for jobs done on a full-time or part-time basis. Women are hit hardest by low incomes.
The abolition of wages councils in 1993, in Wales and across the United Kingdom—a move that I opposed in Committee and in the House—has made the situation dramatically worse. We face a situation, as described by the hon. Member for Caernarfon, in which unemployment has been rising, wages have been forced down, part-time and casualised work has been growing and real incomes have been dropping because of cuts in wage council work.
An excellent survey done for the Low Pay Unit by Huw Edwards, the former Member of Parliament for Monmouth, has recently been circulated to some hon. Members from Wales. I should like to give one example from it and to hear the Minister's comments on it. It concerns a job advertised in a jobcentre in south Wales, for a shop assistant manager earning £2.70 an hour. Before the abolition of wages councils, the minimum for the same job had been £3.15 an hour. That is just one example of a real fall in wages in a typical job, taken from a jobcentre in Wales. I should like to hear from the Minister some explanation of why we were told during the passage of the trade union legislation that the abolition of wages councils, rather than forcing down wages, would increase them, when we have example after example of poorer levels of salary.
My constituency of Delyn in north Wales depends greatly on tourism, the catering industry and hotels and residential homes. Many of those sectors were covered by wages councils and people working in jobs in them have increasingly lower incomes because of the reduction and abolition of wages councils.
That same survey shows that in Wales a large number of jobs are extremely poorly paid. I should like to hear from the Minister why a minimum wage cannot be implemented in Wales. I can give two examples of jobs taken from jobcentres in Wales in May this year. There was an advertisement for an experienced security guard at a rate of £2.19 an hour for a 72-hour week. Another advertisement was also for a security guard at £2.20 an hour, with the hours to be arranged. There are many examples of valuable jobs at low pay, which could be improved by a minimum wage.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Was my hon. Friend's confidence boosted by today's magnificent

announcement that the LG group is coming to Wales in the full knowledge that we shall have a Labour Government, a Welsh Assembly, a social contract and a minimum wage? Does not that contrast with the fact that INMOS, another splendid hi-tech company, left Wales and is now settled in a country which has a minimum wage and a social contract? Should not we congratulate everybody on this achievement, including the Government, the Welsh Development Agency and Newport borough council, and not divide over petty party points as some people have done this morning?

Mr. Hanson: As hon. Members would expect, I agree with my hon. Friend. We are looking for partnership between the Welsh Office, Labour local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency, which was established by a Labour Government. We all welcome the jobs in Newport. However, Newport is a long way from my constituency in north Wales and we need to ensure that there is an even distribution of employment and that investment takes place all round.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) talked about the obvious lack of fear of the future. I suspect that a large company would assess what is likely to happen in the future and see that there is the potential, under a Labour Government, for the social chapter and a range of other measures. That company has taken the decision to invest in Wales having considered all those issues. That is important.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the Council of Europe's decency threshold is £228.68 per week. Income levels in Wales are grossly below that figure. A total of 30 per cent. of the males in my constituency and 63 per cent. of the women employed in my constituency earn less than the Council of Europe threshold.
Figures show that, under the Conservative Government, wages have been driven down even further. Household incomes compared to those in England—my constituency is only 10 miles from England—are in dramatic decline. In 1981, the wage level for people in Wales was 91 per cent. of the English average. Last year, it was down to 75 per cent. of the English average. The average income for a Welsh household is £282 a week compared with £375 in England and £435 in the south-east—35 per cent. lower.
I should genuinely like to hear from the Minister what action his Government intend to take in their dying days to try to reverse that, and what action they have taken in the past. The Opposition have some positive proposals to try to raise the level of real incomes. According to the family expenditure survey, 31 per cent. of Welsh households now have an income of under £175 a week. There is no getting away from the fact that people in Wales are more poorly paid, and that is having a real impact on their quality of life.
My party wishes to establish a minimum wage. I should like to hear from the Minister the genuine reason why he is opposed to that. I suspect that all Opposition parties, which, in effect, means the people of Wales, believe that a minimum wage should exist.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in today's newspapers that President Clinton has made an agreement with the Senate to increase significantly the national minimum wage in the


United States from $2.70 per hour to $3.30 per hour? He will be aware that the United States has the biggest growth in job creation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the United States, the national minimum wage is no barrier to job creation and therefore there is no reason why it should be a barrier in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend has made his case clearly. Like him, I believe in a minimum wage. Many western democracies—not just the United States but countries in Europe—believe in a minimum wage. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. A minimum wage would ensure that the work force were brought on board in a partnership so that they felt part of the organisation. Individuals would feel motivated to work. A minimum wage would put money into the local economy. In my constituency, those whose wages were increased would not buy foreign holidays or imported goods but would be pumping that money back into the local economy and local employment.
The Minister must realise that low pay costs every taxpayer money. Family credit and housing benefit are all being paid by the taxpayer to subsidise poor employers who pay low wages. The Minister should address the problem for good employers who pay decent wages but find themselves undercut by those paying low wages for similar jobs. There is a need for a minimum wage and I want to hear him defend his opposition to it on the record.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall deal briefly with the casualisation and contractorisation of employment. I want to draw the House's attention to the experience of one of my constituents who is not alone in Wales in facing the downside of the changing economy and employment market. My constituent ha, been employed by an agency for three years. He has worked on a contract for an insurance company. There is no doubt that the insurance company gets a good deal because it has a flexible employee and no hassle over terms and conditions of employment, and it pays a fixed fee to the agency for my constituent. It has, effectively, outsourced some of its activities to the agency. My constituent receives poor pay and has poor conditions, no security and no rights at work. I received a letter from my constituent's father. It said:
It is not just the threat of dismissal which is the problem. He can have no sick pay, no holiday entitlement, no bonus or fringe benefits, no pension, no grievance procedure—nothing other than a salary which is still below any of the minimum levels now being mooted, and the fear of being kicked out if he so much as squeaks in protest.
There is a growing feeling that people in Wales are facing casualisation of employment. Contract labour is being brought in and individuals face temporary, casual employment and a reduction in their terms and conditions of service.
Employment figures for the United Kingdom—of which a proportion relates to Wales—show that some 308,000 people work under similar employment conditions to those of my constituent. Although he is involved in training and team building, he receives no company benefits as he is under contract to an agency. The House needs to examine the problems in more detail and to address them.
Coupled with the insecurity of unemployment are the low levels of income and the continual casualisation of work. Wales faces a bleak economic future unless the Government take positive steps to encourage secure employment, improve the economy and provide a minimum wage and real employment rights for all workers, no matter where they work and whatever their terms and conditions.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing today's debate. I regret that, as a result of the posturing of the Conservative and Labour parties, the Welsh Grand Committee was unable to discuss such an important issue. It is quite unacceptable that they are prepared to put narrow party political points before the needs of Wales.
My hon. Friend referred to the document "One Hundred Thousand Answers", which I commend to the House as a considerable step forward and an important contribution to the debate. It comprises a practical set of measures. I am sure that if even a quarter of them were implemented, the Welsh economy would soon turn around.
Rural Wales suffers severe disadvantages. Recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon and I met the Secretary of State for Wales. There was a strong case for establishing an enterprise zone in south Gwynedd. However, when he took office, the Secretary of State denied the people of south Gwynedd the opportunities that would have resulted from enterprise zone status. He said that it would be of no assistance to the area. Hon. Members can imagine my shock some weeks later when I heard the Prime Minister, in one of his silly answers to his Back Benchers, extolling the benefits of enterprise zones, of which there are now some 10 or 12. I find such politicking quite unacceptable as it affects the lives of ordinary people who deserve better.
I find it astonishing that the glossy documents produced by the Welsh Office, including the rural White Paper, do not mention youth unemployment. Mention has been made of the sweatshop economy. Of course we need jobs, but I should make a further comment, although the Welsh Office will deny it. Last year, I went on a visit to Germany with the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. A couple of German industrialists who had set up factories in Wales freely admitted that they had come to Wales because they could pay far lower wages. However, as my hon. Friend pragmatically said, Wales is desperate for jobs and I am sure that today's announcement about LG will be most welcome throughout Wales.
The "Real World Action Programme for Government" which is supported by several important groups including the Town and Country Planning Association, Poverty Alliance and the Employment Policy Institute, sets out some important initiatives for political parties to consider. They include the
implementation over 10 years of a £1 billion annual programme of public investment in local, community and voluntary enterprises; to create work opportunities and attempt to meet social needs.
An 'ecological' restructuring of the tax system, in the first instance through a phased replacement of employers' National Insurance contributions by taxes on pollution and the use of environmental resources.
Establishment of a timetable for achieving within 10 years the UN development aid target of 0.7 per cent. of national income with at least 0.5 per cent. to be achieved in the first term of office, and


increasing to at least 20 per cent. the proportion allocated to social and environmental priority areas such as basic health, primary education, water and sanitation.
As my hon. Friend said, the document proposes
A housing strategy to provide at least 100,000 affordable homes in the social housing sector each year for the next 10 years.
An integrated transport programme with the target of reducing road traffic by 10 per cent. from 1990 levels by the year 2010, as a first step towards deeper reductions.
It also proposes
Regular publication of a new measure of economic welfare which includes social and environmental factors; together with annual published assessment of the contribution made by government economic and social policy towards it.
None of those simple, straightforward and obvious answers appears on the Conservative agenda or on the Labour agenda, but they all appear in the Plaid Cymru manifesto. Plaid Cymru Members are thinking constructively and not sitting back and allowing circumstances to direct us.
There is no doubt that poverty in the United Kingdom and in Wales has risen and the gap between rich and poor has grown ever wider. Poverty has a profoundly damaging effect on people's lives, contributing to worsening health and lack of opportunity. Rising inequality damages social cohesion, leading to rising crime. We are all aware of the symptoms.
The long-term goal of employment policy should be to redistribute employment, allowing everyone access to work—including voluntary work, child care and education—at different stages in their lives. Long-term unemployment could be reduced through a job subsidy provided to employers who take on those who have been unemployed for more than a year.
By reducing employers' national insurance contributions, an "eco-tax reform" would create significant numbers of jobs. In addition, employment could be created through a public expenditure programme directed at meeting social needs. Such a programme should be used specifically to strengthen the social economy of voluntary and community-based organisations and enterprises both by direct investment and by attracting additional finance through the creation of community and regional banks. That, above all, should symbolise the next Government's commitment to reducing poverty and increasing social cohesion.
As we have heard, there is a considerable problem in rural Wales. Nearly three out of 10—or 27.4 per cent.—of men working full time in Wales earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold. The figures for Gwynedd, however, show that as many as 33.5 per cent. of men working full time earn less than that poverty threshold. Only two other counties in Britain—Dyfed and Cornwall—have a higher proportion of low-paid workers. The incidence of low pay for women is even more severe. More than half of all women working in Wales are low paid. That includes nearly five out of 10 women in non-manual jobs and eight out of 10 in manual jobs.
Poverty in rural areas is not always as apparent as in urban areas. The settlement patterns of people in towns and cities often mean that the poverty is concentrated in housing estates or in particular wards. Therefore, it is visually and statistically apparent. Population in rural

areas can often be dispersed over several wards and involve smaller numbers. The infrequency of public transport, comparative isolation, greater reliance on the car and distance from services often worsen the position in rural areas.
Poverty and the state of the economy are interlinked. Economic and social deprivation result from unemployment and low pay. In Europe, there are now 12 million people unemployed and an estimated 52 million people with incomes of less than half the average income per capita in each member state. The worst levels of poverty are concentrated in the northern and southern peripheries of the European Union. The United Kingdom has the largest growth of poverty in the northern periphery as a result of de-industrialisation and economic restructuring.
In Gwynedd, high unemployment is a key player, contributing to the lack of social cohesion. I am desperately worried about the horrible, endemic unemployment among young people under 25. Undoubtedly, those unemployed for more than one year will suffer most from social exclusion. Those people have never worked full time and will therefore find it difficult to enter the labour market. People who are unemployed for more than one year will suffer a whittling down of financial and material resources, confidence, and often health.
As a percentage of total claimants, unemployment among people under the age of 25 in Caernarfonshire, Merionethshire and Ynys Môn is higher than it is for older people. That corresponds to the general trend in Wales, Britain and the European Community. Of the 37 districts in Wales, however, Arfon, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon, has the sixth highest percentage of unemployed people in that age group. Of all unemployed people in the district, 33 per cent. are aged 25 or under. That is a disgraceful figure. Ynys Môn and Arfon have the seventh and eighth highest levels of people who are unemployed for a year or more of all districts in Wales. That may be an underestimate of the true figure, because of the importance of seasonal employment, which lowers the claimant count because people who register after summer employment are regarded as new claimants.
The strength of the economy is usually shown in terms of numbers of men working full time. That number has fallen below the 1981 level, which reflects the decline of manufacturing and other male-dominated areas of employment. On the other hand, the number of men working part time has almost doubled in Caernarfonshire, Merionethshire and Ynys Môn over the past 10 years. Many of those may be working in more than one job. Nevertheless, the traditional social and economic pattern, whereby the male is viewed as the main household earner, has been undermined.
Female part-time employment has continued to increase and numbers of women working full time have also increased, which suggests that, whereas the opportunities for full-time employment for men have fallen, opportunities for women have increased. That may in part be due to greater acceptability of women who apply for jobs that were traditionally carried out by men. Alas, women, too, often accept low wages, which may also be partly due to greater employment opportunities for women in the service sector—jobs for which men do not normally apply. Those changing patterns have given rise to a new set of needs. They have enforced changed roles on men


and women. Unemployed men might have to learn to be the care givers to enable women to work. However, family incomes may be lower since women's wages tend to be lower.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I desperately believe that some urgent action is necessary. It grieves me that nobody in Wales, apart from Plaid Cymru, is talking about this agenda. I only wish that all parties would enter the domain. There is nothing of any comfort in Labour's latest document, assuming that it is not changed radically without consultation as other policies tend to be. Indeed, I would welcome a U-turn.
The overall position is desperate. There is rural poverty and urban poverty, and nothing is being done to address the important problems. All the suggestions that my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon has made in this debate and the answers that I suggested earlier have two things in common: none of them appears on the agenda of the Tories or Labour, and none of them could be addressed by a toothless talking shop of a Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing this debate on unemployment and low pay in Wales. I couple that with congratulations to Welsh Office Ministers, local authorities, Newport borough council and all the other agencies, bodies, individuals and consultants who have been involved in helping to land the LG project for Wales, as was announced in the early hours of this morning. It is a superb project—possibly the largest inward investment project in Wales for 20 years, and perhaps the most important since the BSC Llanwem steelworks 40 years ago in the same town of Newport.
It is unusual, although not unique, for such a mega-investment project to be announced right at the end of a Parliament. It shows that LG is investing in Wales regardless of the outcome of the next election. Obviously, the bulk of the public expenditure needed to bring the project to fruition will be required after the election. All the jobs that will arise from the project will arise after the election, too. I say to Welsh Office Ministers who are present, all others and any Korean listeners that Labour's Welsh Front-Bench team gives an absolute commitment to bring that mega-project to fruition should the responsibility fall to us after the election.
We shall all have to get used to words such as "chaebo"—the Korean word for large industrial conglomerates, of which LG is one. Indeed, we shall have to get used to the name LG, since the company has changed its name from Lucky Goldstar in the past 12 months. In Wales, LG used to mean one thing: the initials of this country's only Welsh Prime Minister. Those initials now have a new meaning for all in Wales, and one which is very welcome because of the subject of this debate. Never has such a mega-investment been more urgently needed by Wales or, perhaps, any other part of the United Kingdom. The deterioration in the Welsh economy has been caused largely by the absence of such mega-projects over the past 20 years.
The Government's Invest in Britain Bureau conveniently produced a list of mega-projects in a press release issued yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade. I was very pleased to read the list because it was

identical to a list that I gave in a previous debate. That is not a boast; one does not need to be a rocket scientist to work out which projects are needed. The list is highly relevant to this debate. I absolutely agree with the press release when it says:
Companies such as Siemens, Fujitsu, Toyota, NEC, Samsung, Honda Chunghwa and Nissan make a vital difference to the local economy wherever they choose to set up operations.
We should remember that Siemens and Fujitsu are going to the north-east of England, Toyota has already gone to the east midlands, NEC has gone to Scotland, Samsung to the north-east of England, Honda to the south-west of England, Chunghwa to Scotland, and Nissan to the north-east of England, but none has gone to Wales. The absence of such mega-projects is probably the reason why unemployment and low pay are such problems for Wales. Thank goodness, at long last, for the first time in 20 years, a mega-project has come to Wales—the first since the Ford engine plant went to Bridgend in 1976.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I should like to make two points. First, the hon. Gentleman said that Lloyd George was the only Welsh Prime Minister. There was also, of course, James Callaghan. Secondly, the Toyota engine plant is in Deeside. I apologise for not being present for the whole of the debate, but I heard it from afar. My problem was that I could not lose a couple of minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's attempted correction. His arrival in the debate on unemployment and low pay is better late than never on a day when I half expected all three Conservative Back Benchers to be present to help to welcome the good news for Wales today. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has entered the Chamber halfway through the debate. He was right in one sense: James Callaghan represented a Welsh seat—"indeed, the one that adjoined mine—for 40-odd years, but we tend to think of Lloyd George as having a special place because, although I believe that he was born in Manchester, he was brought up in Wales. He was Welsh in a very specific way that I am sure Lord Callaghan, who is now a distinguished Member of the other place, would not claim.
As yesterday's DTI press release said, investment in such a large project can almost on its own lift the relative position of a region such as Wales in the league table. Failure to attract any of the projects listed by the DTI, until this morning's news from Seoul, has caused the relative deterioration in Wales's position in the United Kingdom league table. That deterioration is starkly illustrated in the 1996 edition of "Regional Trends", published a fortnight ago. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon has already given figures similar to those that I intended to cite, I shall not repeat them. "Regional Trends" gives us the figures for Wales up to 1 April 1995 in most cases, and shows how extraordinarily badly Wales has been doing over the past 15 years.
According to Government figures for gross domestic product or household income per head, in 1980–81 Wales came ninth out of the nine English regions plus Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are now at the bottom of the league table—12th out of 12. That is a sad state of affairs and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon for this debate, which helps us to focus on the


difference that the LG project will help to make to Wales's position in the league table. Table 8.1 of "Regional Trends" shows that in 1994–95 not only was Wales bottom of the table on household income per head, but the gap between it and the next lowest region—northern England—was enormous. In northern England, average gross household income was £345 per week while in Wales it was £282.70.
Wales's deterioration compared with Northern Ireland is also extraordinary. In 1980–81, Wales in ninth position had an average gross weekly income of £138.60 and Northern Ireland was almost £20 worse off at £119.20 a week. By 1994–95, Wales, now in 12th position, had an average gross weekly income of £282.70 while Northern Ireland had an average gross weekly income of £40 more than Wales at £326.30 per household. It is serious enough to drop from ninth to 12th place, but even more serious to be hopelessly behind in 12th place. That is what is so depressing about the picture for Wales.
There seems to have been not merely a relative deterioration but an absolute deterioration. For instance, in 1992 average weekly expenditure per person reached £101.60. Two years later, it had dropped to £96 40. The same is true of income per head. That absolute deterioration then feeds through to other parts of the economy. If a family has a low weekly income, its general expenditure will not create extra jobs in the service sector. It will not create a demand for new shops and other specialist services because it simply does not have the money to lash out on all manner of services. So low wages create a poor provision of wages in multiplier service industries and, as a result, there tends to be a low demand for labour, which then depresses incomes. That vicious cycle has impacted on Wales since 1992.
The importance of this morning's news is that it gives the Welsh economy an opportunity to improve its position and surpass some of the other regions which tend to depend, as Wales does, on manufacturing industry. It will increase demand for labour and therefore increase relative wage levels. It was ironic to hear on the 8 o'clock BBC television news this morning, announcing the LG project, that one of the reasons why the Koreans were investing in Wales was that they had a strong manufacturing economy and strong trade unions. Strong trade unions were forcing up wages, so they were coming to Britain. That is good news for Britain, but it is ironic when we compare the history of Great Britain and Korea over the past 30 or 40 years.
Never have we so greatly welcomed investment which might generate demand for highly qualified staff and which will have a chain reaction throughout the economy in south Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) was right to say that people in his area had no chance of getting jobs there, but at least half the population in Wales resides within a reasonable travel-to-work distance—20 or 25 miles—of the Duffryn site in Newport. We hope that, at least in that area, there will be a step change. However, it must be accompanied by a step change in the number of qualified engineers, scientists, technologists, supervisory staff and quality control technicians. We must step up our output of such people. Otherwise, as the BBC said this morning, given the size of the investment and the fact that it will be

Wales's first silicon chip factory, LG will take highly qualified staff from other electronics components factories rather than from the unemployment register.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity this morning to explain how the Welsh Office will handle all the knock-on decisions that need to be made. What additional resources will be made available to the training and enterprise councils and the modern apprenticeship scheme to ensure that skilled labour and supervisory and technical staff—the shortage of which prevents this country from growing as quickly as it should—are made available? What will happen to the Euro-freight terminal only three or four miles away from the Duffryn site to ensure that transportation blockages are not caused by the gigantic new LG investment? How will the Minister ensure that, if and when a Labour Government come to power, we shall be able to complete a project that is running smoothly and on time without causing problems to other employers, and therefore ensure that it will have the maximum impact on unemployment and low pay in Wales?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): In the short time left to me, I shall try to answer all the questions that have been posed. First, I thank the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for providing us with an opportunity to debate all the good things that are happening in Wales. He will agree that this is a great day for Wales, although others looking on would not necessarily believe it from most of what they have heard in this morning's debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today signed not Wales's or the United Kingdom's but Europe's biggest ever investment deal in Seoul. It will bring 6,100 jobs to Wales. After much speculation, I can now confirm that the Korean-based international group LG will invest £1.7 billion in electronics and semi-conductor plants on a 250-acre site at Imperial Park, Newport.
That is the biggest vote of confidence the Welsh economy has ever had. No other inward investment project in Europe has created so many jobs. It is a tremendous boost for the south-east valleys of Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole and will transform employment prospects. It is good news for the people who will work for LG. It is good news for their families and for all the businesses that will supply LG. As well as the 6,100 jobs that LG will create, at least as many again will be generated in supplier and support industries.
The £1.7 billion project will create 6,100 new jobs in a series of developments. LG Semicon will build a plant to make, test and package semi-conductor wafers. LG Electronics will make monitors, colour-picture and colour-display tubes and cathode ray tube components, later expanding to make electron guns and large, wide-screen colour televisions.
I am very grateful for the welcome and for the congratulations that the hon. Members for Caernarfon, for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) have extended to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team on what has been achieved.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will my hon. Friend convey our congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Welsh Development Agency? We know


that he and the agency have been active, not only last night but in the past nine months or so, in attracting this great acquisition for Wales.

Mr. Jones: I will pass on my right hon. Friend's congratulations, and I believe that he spoke for the whole House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will by now be flying back from Seoul, and will be in the House tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon asked me about any possibility, relating to media speculation, of changes in the arrangements for inward investment, and I can tell him plainly that neither I nor my right hon. Friend has any plans to make any such changes. He also mentioned the implications for resources for the Welsh Development Agency; I can assure him that the agency will receive the resources that it requires to ensure that this project proceeds.
This is an example of what team Wales has achieved, and it will enhance the reputation of Wales and its work force throughout the world. As such, I contrast the comments by the hon. Member for Newport, West, the separatist tendencies of the hon. Member for Caernarfon—although he made no mention of them today—and the Labour party's centralist tendency, represented by its Welsh Assembly proposal, which was at least a live proposal until the referendum was imposed on it.
What better example can we have today of what can be achieved now under the present arrangements, and what clearer warning can there be for Wales that, if we were to be over-governed, with an extra tier of government, extra bureaucracy, and the burden of extra taxation, if a regional assembly were imposed on the people of Wales, Wales would not be the winner that it is today but the loser?

Mr. Wigley: The Minister tempts me and I draw to his attention, as I did in my contribution, the remarkable performance of the Irish Republic in creating 56,000 new jobs in two years, with a per capita gross domestic product which has passed that of Wales. Now that we have had this success in the Newport area, how will the Welsh Office strategy ensure that there are similar developments in the westerly parts of Wales, in Gwynedd, Dyfed and in the westerly valleys of the old coalfield?

Mr. Jones: I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question, and I shall return to that subject in more detail.
I wish to take the opportunity to nail the claim referred to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones). I am glad that it was essentially refuted by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. All too often, it is put about that the Government are succeeding in attracting Korean and Taiwanese companies to Wales only because wages in Wales have fallen to coolie levels. That is a myth. It is ridiculous to say that inward investors are attracted by low wage rates and continue to pay low wages, or that there are lower pay rates for the same day's work in Wales than in England. I wish to take time to lay these fallacious and malicious ideas to rest, lest anyone outside the House should start to believe them.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Last week I visited Ford at Bridgend, which recently announced that it intends to create 450 new jobs, and Bosch, also in the

vale of Glamorgan, which intends to create 100 new jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good illustration of the fact that South Wales is a high-wage economy for many workers, and that this is not a flash in the pan? This wonderful new announcement is symptomatic of an enormous amount of economic success in Wales. Is it not time that the Opposition stopped running down the record of the Government and the Welsh Development Agency and sang up the praises—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Chair does not encourage mini-speeches in interventions. That is what we are getting from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes my points for me.
Since April 1990, average wages have increased faster in Wales than in Great Britain as a whole. The evidence is that, job for job, there is little variation in pay between the regions of the UK, with the possible exception of the south-east of England. It is not true that inward investors pay low wages. Inward investors generally pay above UK average rates. In Wales, in some sectors, average rates for inward investors are a good deal—20 to 40 per cent.—above the UK average.
There is a difference between low wages and low labour costs. Inward investors are attracted to the UK and Wales in part because of low wage costs, employers' social security costs, pensions and health contributions. Rightly, these costs are lower in this country than elsewhere in Europe. For every £100 in wages, employers pay extra non-wage labour costs of £44 in Italy, £41 in France. £34 in Spain, £32 in Germany but only £18 in the United Kingdom.
Average Welsh earnings fell behind those in other UK regions in the wake of the coal and steel closures, but we are now developing the skills of our work force and the strengths of the Welsh economy and reaping the benefits. Since 1990, the decline has been reversed, and manual workers in manufacturing now have earnings close to the UK average. I can tell the hon. Member for Caernarfon that gross domestic product per head in Wales grew faster between 1993 and 1994 than in any other region of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) extracted figures from the family expenditure survey in the recent edition of "Regional Trends". To make realistic comparisons, we believe that data from the regional accounts should be used. Those show Wales in a markedly different position, with income per head of 88 per cent. of that for England, but that can be reconciled with other figures such as per capita GDP.
A better picture of relative spending power is given by disposable income per head. Welsh disposable income is 92 per cent. of the English figure. There are no separate price indices for Wales, but I think that the hon. Member for Caernarfon would find it hard to deny that many things cost less in Wales than they do in London, so this level of disposable income probably goes further in Wales than it would in England.
It is clear that, with per capita disposable income of only 92 per cent. of that in England, Wales has a significant way to go, but I cannot endorse the


counter-productive remarks that have been made. They do no good because they distract from the real issues and needs.
I am seeking to set out the Government's strategy for improving the prosperity of Wales, and the single main cause of low income is unemployment, not low pay. A recent European report found that, in the UK as a whole, low pay is a relatively minor element. Lower-paid workers, including women, do not generally live in low-income households. Most are second or third earners in those households. [Interruption.] I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was trying to intervene.

Mr. Rowlands: I am. In many cases in our communities now, the woman's income is the only income coming into the household.

Mr. Jones: On this point about low pay, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been able to find only one case of low pay being cited as an example of an advantage for inward investment. It was brought to my attention by Alun Cairns, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Gower. He told me about a video that was sponsored, showing that in Swansea earnings were on average 11 per cent. less than in the rest of the UK and 25 per cent. lower than in the south-east of England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to know who put out that video in promotion of inward investment. Perhaps the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will want to confirm that it was done by Labour-controlled Swansea city council.

Mr. Donald Anderson: That was no boast—it was the reality of low pay in south-west Wales. Does the Minister accept that one of the real problems in Wales is that the south-west will have the same relationship to the south-east as the north and other regions of England have to the south-east? The Welsh Office needs to do something to redress the balance.

Mr. Jones: We are seeking to address that. However, the fact is that a Labour-controlled authority used that reference in an attempt to secure inward investment, and that is the only time I have seen such a reference in a video.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon made the point that industrial wage rates in Wales are on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom. We want to see higher wages brought to Wales not on the industrial side but on the support and white-collar side. We need to expand that range so that we drag up the average. We have to deal with the facts, but they should not be cited in the way that they have been cited. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West dared to suggest that it was in line with this myth that has been maliciously peddled for political purposes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up

A20 (Aycliffe)

Mr. David Shaw: I refer to a matter that is of considerable concern to my constituents who live in the Aycliffe area, just outside Dover. The current problems stem from the building of the new A20 road. It would be churlish of me if I did not recognise the wonderful construction of the new A20, which has been operating for some three years. The road has been excellent for Dover. The construction techniques were advanced, and there is an excellent tunnel just through the hills between Folkestone and Capel le Ferne—it must be one of the most technically advanced tunnels that this country has seen in recent years. The road has been welcomed in Dover.
The A20 shows that the Conservative Government are committed to our port and ferry industry. The road has enabled that industry to compete against the channel tunnel in a way that might not have happened if there had been road links only to the channel tunnel. The people of Dover are enormously grateful for the road. The three sections of the road cost almost £100 million, which is a considerable amount of money.
The road is fantastic. It has the most amazing view of Dover—it shows my constituency in all its splendour. As one comes out of the countryside and the hills on the new A20, one has an amazing view of Dover castle and its ramparts, which have protected and defended this nation for some 900 years. The view of the port is absolutely magnificent—as one comes down from the hills, one can see ferries turning around in the port, hovercraft arriving and departing, and the magnificent cruise liners docking at the new terminal. For those who find it necessary, one can see across to France on a clear day.
My constituents have welcomed the new A20, which makes it all the more sad that today I have to raise a number of problems that are making the people of Aycliffe suffer. The A20 passes just to the side of the Aycliffe estate, just on the outskirts of Dover, and it is the area most affected by the issues that I will raise today. The residents of Aycliffe have suffered during the whole road works programme. For example, during the construction they suffered because of noise, dust and dirt, and they have since suffered because of the noise from the road—however, most residents have had soundproofing, which has alleviated the noise to some degree.
A considerable amount of work was done by the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads at the Department of Transport—Christopher Chope was a Member for Southampton in the previous Parliament, and he is now the Conservative candidate for Christchurch. He did a lot to help my constituents when he was in the Department of Transport, and I shall welcome him back to the House if he is successful at the next election. He is a first-rate candidate, and he was a first-rate Member of Parliament.
My constituents in Aycliffe have also suffered because of the considerable amount of rubbish that was left behind at the end of construction. In addition, a considerable number of minor works have not been completed. They want to know why it is taking more than three years to do these minor works, which involve two car parks and the reinstatement of small pieces of land. The car park and reinstatement saga is a ridiculous story that should


never have happened. I am not talking about big projects that cost millions—I am talking about the end of a significant project and small projects that would cost no more than £100,000. In addition, Dover district council will pay considerably towards the total cost.
There are two main areas of contention. The first is the undertaking to provide five car parking bay spaces at Gloster Ropewalk and 11 spaces at King's Ropewalk. Secondly, there was a commitment to reinstate and to landscape the former Trans-Manche link compound connected with the channel tunnel works and the surrounding area immediately beyond Aycliffe on the north side of the A20—including the provision of a fenced playing field for the children of Aycliffe, who have not had a playground for the past three summers. In addition, there is the removal of the foundations of the redundant Callender Hamilton bridge and of the noise bank behind 198 to 204 St. David's avenue in Aycliffe.
I have battled away to try to get the work completed. Two local councillors, Jim and Jackie Hood, and the officers and staff of Dover district council have also tried to get the work completed. I thank all the people who have helped me to get the work completed.
It is ludicrous that this started in 1993, after the road was completed and it was decided that there should be some hammerhead turning arrangement at the end of each access road in Gloster Ropewalk and King's Ropewalk. The residents of King's Ropewalk approached the council about the possibility of using part of the available land for car parking. The Department of Transport and its engineers rapidly explored the suggestion, which was good news.
Unfortunately, three alternative sites were drawn up. However, there was consultation, and the process was quite quick, following a public meeting in September 1993. Following the consultation, the designs for the preferred options were agreed to rapidly, the council's highways engineers and planning officers acted quickly, the schemes were costed quickly, and the council even agreed to pay the bulk of the costs. In fact, I understand that the council found some finances in the 1993–94 budget.
In 1994, the delays started, because there were problems when it was found that an extension or a variation order could not be added to the A20 contract. Unfortunately, the contractor bid a high price and put in a high tender, which could not be recommended—we accept that it was an unreasonably high price. Therefore, other alternatives were explored.
As a result of the delays, the council budget allocation for the works was deferred until 1994–95. However, work continued, and the contract was discussed with Eurotunnel to ensure that the work could be completed. There were further delays through 1994, which extended into 1995. Nevertheless, the council allocated money to the works in its 1995–96 budget.
We were told that tenders would be let during 1995, and the council tried hard to press forward. However, there were more excuses, including references to drought conditions that were affecting the road works. It was claimed that large quantities of water would be required for dust control measures. Despite the delays, the council ensured that finance was available at every stage, and it acted promptly with regard to Department of Transport and Highways Agency approvals.

I was involved throughout the process, and I wrote several letters in 1993 in an attempt to have most of the road works completed. However, the real saga began on 10 October 1994, when I wrote the first of a series of letters to the Highways Agency concerning rubbish on the site and the completion of the car park. I wrote to the Highways Agency again on 15 November 1994 and on 11 April 1995. At that time, I also wrote letters to Transport Ministers and to Dover district council, in order to ensure that its work progressed unhindered.
I wrote more letters to the Highways Agency on 26 September 1995 and on 2 February 1996. On 21 March 1996, I wrote to Mr. Lawrie Haynes of the Highways Agency. My letter of 31 March 1996 referred to the completion of the car park and to other works. I wrote again to Mr. Haynes on 17 May 1996 and, more recently, on 21 June 1996. The Highways Agency replied to my letters expressing support for the project. It agreed that the works should be carried out as soon as possible.
For example, in November 1994, Mr. Haynes wrote to me claiming that construction of the proposed car park had delayed the general tidying up of the Gloster Ropewalk area. He assured me that the Highways Agency would
complete the reinstatement of the area as quickly as possible. Once these works are completed, I am confident that your constituents will see a general improvement in the appearance of the area.
In his letter of 16 December 1994, Mr. Haynes told me that he expected to invite tenders for the work. He said:
The car park construction forms part of the additional works contract for which we hope to invite tenders around the turn of the year.
That was in 1994. We expected tenders to be invited and the work to be carried out early in 1995. When the work did not begin, I wrote more letters.
I received a reply dated 4 May 1995 in which Mr. Haynes said:
I understand the frustration felt by the residents of Aycliffe at the apparent lack of progress to provide the promised car parks and tidy up the Estate; they will be pleased to know that the tenders are expected to be let very soon now.
Those tenders had not been let by May 1995, despite the long list of assurances. On 4 July 1995, Mr. Haynes of the Highways Agency wrote to me again saying that he understood the frustration felt by local residents. He gave them the pleasing news that
tenders are expected to be let very soon now".
He also claimed:
the construction of the car parks will be completed at an early stage in the contract".
Nevertheless, nothing happened.
In February 1996, Mr. Haynes predicted that work would begin in spring this year. In April 1996—that is, the spring—he wrote saying that he expected work to commence the same month. However, the work did not begin in April or May. As a result, I pressed the Highways Agency on the matter, and I received another reply from Mr. Haynes on 20 June 1996, in which he said that the agency hoped to award the contract
in the next few weeks; the works should start shortly afterwards.
We waited, but nothing happened.
There were rumours in mid-June, and Eurotunnel heard first that the work would not commence in the next few weeks as I had been told. When I contacted Mr. Haynes


at the beginning of July, I discovered that the work had been delayed further. I received a letter on 4 July 1996 confirming another delay to the project. It blamed
unique difficulties specific to this project.
The Highways Agency claimed that it expected to let the contract in the next few weeks and added:
work will start shortly after the contract is let and should be completed by Autumn 1996.
Enough is enough. I applied to Madam Speaker for an Adjournment debate on the subject, and I am enormously grateful to her and to her office for allowing me to raise the matter so soon after I applied to do so last week. It is an appalling state of affairs. We want to see some action: we want to know that work has commenced.
My constituents in Aycliffe have suffered enough. Although the road is fantastic, they have been treated very badly: too many commitments and promises have not been met. There should be some way of ensuring that road projects of that nature are completed properly.
Like me, my hon. Friend the Minister is a chartered accountant by profession—we were once employed by the same eminent firm of chartered accountants. He knows as well as I that we would be given a sharp ticking off if the audit file was not completed properly and the work was not signed off. As managers, we had to ensure that the work was signed off properly—we were responsible for that—before it went to the partner. When the partner approved the work, there was a final signing-off procedure before the accounts could be issued.
I think that the procedures that my hon. Friend and I employed in our accounting days should also apply to road projects. There should be a final signing-off procedure, which should be monitored and notified to Ministers. I am a great admirer of the agency principle: the agency system works well, as it provides a good operational focal point for Members of Parliament who want to address constituency problems.
I do not wish to negate the role of the Highways Agency or arrangements between Ministers and agencies. However, Ministers should be informed about the performance of bodies such as the Highways Agency. There should be no final signing off until all the commitments given to residents have been met. I know that sometimes it is not possible to meet all residents' requirements, but commitments have been made to my constituents in Aycliffe that have not been met. It is imperative that, if commitments are made by agencies of the Government, those commitments should be met promptly and signed off by people who accept responsibility for them.
Although it is not possible now to meet all the commitments that were made, I hope that we will get a commitment that I and my constituents in Aycliffe can be certain will be carried out. The residents of Aycliffe, especially of Gloster Ropewalk and the severely affected area in King's Ropewalk, deserve an apology for the way in which they have been inconvenienced. I hope that the Minister will also recognise the considerable work that the two local councillors have done. They assisted me and ensured that I was properly informed about what has been an unsatisfactory situation. I look forward to my hon. Friend's comments, and I hope that I will hear some commitments on which he can deliver.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on his diligence and persistence in pursuing the cause of his constituents and bringing the issue before the House today. As he has just said, he has also worked closely with the local ward councillors.
My hon. Friend has rightly expressed concern about how long it has taken us to meet the commitments we gave him and his constituents. As he described, we carried out a major improvement of the A20 as part of a road scheme to facilitate better access to the channel tunnel and the docks at Dover. My hon. Friend acknowledged that those improvements have enhanced the competitive position of the docks, and brought benefits to road users.
To avoid delay to the main works, we decided to procure ancillary works in a separate contract. The ancillary works comprise items which are minor in the context of the main scheme, but which are, as I acknowledged, important to the residents of Aycliffe. The intention was that three outstanding items should be combined with other works and contained in one separate contract on value-for-money grounds.
Those works included the provision of two small car parks; the removal of spoil to form a replacement playing field to make good the one that had been affected by road works; and the provision of field access at Court Wood. The provision of car parks was at the request of Dover district council, which agreed to pay the additional costs of providing car parks instead of the turning areas that were originally intended.
Tenders were initially invited in May 1995, and we anticipated that work would be undertaken during the following few months. All the undertakings given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover over the years were given in good faith at the time, although events have frustrated them. The open space will be provided by using material previously excavated during the road construction and placing it in an area that was the former Eurotunnel compound. That work could not be carried out until Eurotunnel had completely vacated the site, but Eurotunnel required the site until May last year, some six months after the main A20 opened to traffic.
The replacement open space area, which is to be infilled and landscaped, lies close to the main ventilation air intake for the channel tunnel. The electronic signalling system in the tunnel is extremely sensitive to dust. If dust were to enter it, the signalling could be affected, as well as the safe operation of the tunnel. Eurotunnel was concerned that no additional dust be generated by the work, and the original tender documents stipulated that.
Normally, dust is controlled or minimised by watering, but that approach was called seriously into question last year during a period of very dry weather, and it looked likely that a drought order would be imposed. Given that situation, the Highways Agency decided that it would irresponsible to proceed with the award of a contract that needed large quantities of water and that effectively meant a delay to all the works.
Tenders were re-invited in February 1996, and returned at the end of March. Agreement had been reached with Eurotunnel about the acceptable levels of additional dust generated, but concern arose over the magnitude of the potential costs of operating close to the tunnel ventilation shaft, and amendments to the tender documents had to be


issued, increasing the insurance requirements substantially and transferring the responsibility for the appointment of dust monitoring specialists to the contractor rather than the engineer for the contract.
I acknowledge that those issues should have been addressed earlier. It is a matter of great regret that they were not so addressed, but when they did come to light, they could not be ignored. We had to be sure that we would not risk the safety of those using the tunnel or cause significant costs to arise if its safe operation had been affected. I appreciate that that is of little comfort to the constituents of my hon. Friend, who have had to wait before work on the car parks and replacement open space could be started. I apologise to them on behalf of the Highways Agency.
The current position is that the revised tenders are due to be returned on 23 July. We shall pull out all the stops to evaluate the revised tenders, so that we can award the contract early in August. Work should be able to start on the site approximately four weeks after the award of the contract, and the contract period covers a total of 18 weeks. The successful tenderer will be required to produce a programme of work for the whole contract, and the contract specifies that, once work on each of the car parks commences, it shall be completed and the site cleared in nine weeks to minimise further discomfort and disruption for the local people.
Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight, completion of the car parks could have been achieved sooner if they had been treated in isolation. The inclusion of all the work in one contract was agreed for good reasons, but it has undoubtedly caused delay. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall press on to see that the work is completed at an early date to try to make amends for some of our past failings.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend also ensure that a proper monitoring procedure is followed as the contract takes place? Many of the residents in Aycliffe were enormously inconvenienced during the main A20 road works, and it would be helpful if his office were kept informed by a proper monitoring and control procedure to ensure that the project proceeds to plan.

Mr. Watts: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to take a close personal interest in the progress of the contract; perhaps he will invite me to visit his constituency, when the works have been completed, so that we can have a proper, final signing off, as he suggested.

Guy's Hospital

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise again the future of Guy's hospital on the Floor of the House. I welcome the Minister, and I am grateful to him for his attendance. I do not wish to be unfair to him, but I am conscious that he has a double interest as a Minister in the Department of Health and as a south-east London Member of Parliament, some of whose constituents use the hospital. I know that some of them have contacted him as their constituency Member of Parliament about the future of Guy's hospital. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims) asked me to give his apologies to the House today. The House will know that he, and other colleagues, have sought Adjournment debates on this subject in the past. The hon. Gentleman is normally a good ally and collaborator on these matters.
I do not wish to take an antagonistic or confrontational approach today—the Minister and his colleagues have not done so in the past year—but I have some fundamental questions to put to the Minister that follow on from the more substantive debate about the structure of health services in south-east London that we had just over a year ago.
I wish, first, to clarify the position as the public understand it and then, secondly, to express in words which have been given to me some of the continuing concerns. Thirdly, I shall ask some specific questions about specific issues.
Guy's hospital has international renown as a teaching hospital. A medical and dental school is attached to it. It is based at London Bridge. Guy's is probably the most accessible hospital in London. It is literally on top of London Bridge station and at the junction of what will be two underground lines. There is the Northern line and there will be the Jubilee line extension, which we look forward to with much excitement. It is due to open in 1998. Work is taking place as I speak. As many buses turn round at the terminal as anywhere else. The hospital is across the bridge from the City, but it serves that area as well as south-east London. Guy's hospital has traditionally been one of south-east London's two principal hospitals. Over more than 270 years, it has built up an extraordinarily high reputation.
Guy's hospital has moved with the times. Since the war, it has developed two completely new buildings. The third, newest and most controversial building is Philip Harris house, as some of us perhaps mischievously continue to call it. I understand that that name is slightly problematical for some. Philip Harris, now Lord Harris, who is a great friend of institutions in south London, came from Peckham. He donated a significant sum, which meant that the building bore his name. But he was not pleased with the Government's policy on its use. Money was withheld and the name may now be written out of the history books, as it were. I hope that we can continue to honour Lord Harris's interest.
There is frustration for all of us who live, work, have our being in or use Guy's hospital. That is because there is a state-of-the art building within the health service that has taken almost as long to complete as the British Library. I do not put it in quite the same league as the library, for the library is in the premier league of delay,


whereas Philip Harris house is a first division delay. There is great frustration because it was built to include intensive care beds, specialist facilities and out-patient facilities, all to be integrated with Guy's tower and New Guy's house, as the third of the post-war developments.
I gather that it is now hoped that the new building will be opened next year. The time of opening has regularly been put back. I am reminded of the worldwide call of Jews, "Next year in Jerusalem." It will be a real Jerusalem day when the Philip Harris building opens. We want to know whether it will open, whether it will be open soon, and whether it will open within the terms of the all-singing, all-dancing, all-functioning plan that was intended.
Two building sub-issues deserve to be flagged up. Given the delays and escalating costs, I understand that the National Audit Office is investigating the cost overrun. That became apparent from an answer to one of my parliamentary questions some months ago. If the Minister can help us by outlining how far that investigation has reached, that would be helpful.
The second sub-issue appears to be due significantly to a problem with copper piping. It would be helpful to know whether the problem has been resolved and will no longer delay completion.
Philip Harris house has a crucial role in the overall equation. There is general agreement that some of the wards at Guy's hospital are no longer suitable for the purpose for which they were built. Hunt's house, for example, is an old building that is due to be knocked down. The community is sentimental about it, but is ready to see it go, for it is clearly not up to scratch. It is intended in part for that building to be replaced by Philip Harris house phase 3.
I want to ensure that Philip Harris house will be fully used and to argue, against the background of the discussions that have taken place, that it should be used for the purposes for which it was intended. One failure over the past couple of years has been not to understand that we are at risk as a nation in spending money on health service capital plant in south-east London to the extent of about £150 million, some of which has been contributed in the form of donations to Philip Harris house, and then not using such facilities to the full. We are at risk also of spending even more money on Philip Harris house through a change of use that is in the pipeline. In addition, we are at risk of spending even more money to provide facilities elsewhere, which would not be necessary if we were to use Philip Harris house for its intended purpose.
I seek assurances from the Minister that Philip Hams house will be open, at last, next year and that there are no further problems. I want an assurance also that it will be used for the purpose for which it was intended. An update on the NAO's position would be helpful.
I have set out the relevant geography and history with one exception, which was the subject of a debate in the House on 24 June. There are advanced plans for the medical and dental school, which is now called the united medical and dental school of Guy's and St Thomas's hospitals, to be merged with the King's College hospital medical and dental school and King's college, London. I apologise for that mouthful. It is proposed that the merger will take place soon. The relevant Bill has been

recently before the Select Committee on Unopposed Bills. It will return to the House in due course; it has been given a Second Reading. It is not entirely uncontroversial.
In outline, on the west side of a road that runs through the Guy's hospital site at London Bridge—it is called Maze Pond—there will be the medical school and its facilities. That is to be welcomed. On the east side, there will be the hospital plus the dental hospital and the dental school. That is relevant to the history of these matters, because whether the merger takes place, it is clear that there are plans to keep on the Guy's site a medical and dental presence. It is hugely important to the future of the hospital that the medical and dental school remains. There is no argument that it should not. At the same time, there are logical implications.
On Second Reading of the King's College London Bill on 24 June, the Minister who then occupied the Government Front Bench supported the Bill and, understandably, did not then go into details of health service provision on the Guy's hospital site. I hope that today the Under-Secretary of State can answer the question that is in everyone's mind, which is: why, if we are to have one of the premier British and international medical and dental schools on the Guy's hospital site, as we wish, is it not logical that there should be a large out-patient department along with in-patient provision, which goes across the specialties, or at least some, as well as including elective beds for routine waiting list operations, such as orthopaedic operations and hip replacements? Medical students would then have the opportunity on site of seeing out-patients and in-patients.
It is an obvious part of medical and dental training that there should be patients to see. I understand that the academic practice nowadays is to start clinical work at an earlier stage. Two years is not spent solely on theory, followed by practice. Obviously, it is less important that there should be beds available for dental students. At the same time, it is clearly important that there should be such provision for medical students.
All the advice that I have been given and all the feelings that have been represented to me by the student body—I heard the feelings of that body recently and spoke about a week ago to student representatives from the medical and dental school—are that there is no wish for a split site for the medical and dental school and the hospital. It is nonsense for teaching not to be carried out on the same site as the home-base hospital.
I seek an assurance that there will be sufficient beds at the Guy's site, not just for mental health patients—we welcome the 112 beds for elective patients from the local community—but for other medical and surgical work, which will make it logical for teaching to be carried out on the same site. Students should not have to shuttle around a triangle in congested south-east London—even if they use bikes—between the sites at Guy's and St. Thomas's and the King's College site at Denmark hill, Camberwell.
All those who talk about the importance of students having a good education stress the importance of students having a settled existence on one site. Of course, students go off to do six-month stints in other hospitals to learn, for example, paediatrics or maternity practice. During their training, they will probably go abroad, perhaps to Africa, Russia, or the West Indies. During their six-month stints, they will probably go to district general hospitals outside


London. I am not talking about that. I am talking about teaching while studying at the medical and dental school. I should like an assurance on that.
I am happy to tell the Minister that I do not dispute the fact that the Government were right that there had to be rationalisation of specialties in London. It would be nonsense to have a great, internationally renowned cancer department in Guy's hospital and to have another a mile and a half down the road at St. Thomas's and another a further mile and a half down the road from that. I have always disputed, however, that that means that all specialties—the tertiary care, as it is called—are put on one site, at St. Thomas's, and not on the Guy's site. I shall tell the Minister why that strategic plan appears to be in need of adjustment. I shall not now tackle head-on Government policy on rationalising health services in London, but I shall deal with the implications for the Guy's and St. Thomas's trust.
For two reasons, it is better that some of the specialties remain on the Guy's site: first, it will be less expensive to the taxpayer to use to the full the buildings on which we have spent the money, and not to have to spend more public money on other buildings elsewhere. I am happy to go through the details of that with Ministers. Secondly, all the advice from health services in America and Scandinavia, and from independent management in this country, is that hospitals with 1,500 beds are not the best places to teach, to work as a nurse or doctor, or to be treated as a patient; that it is a much better hospital if it has 700 or 800 beds; and that economies of scale and the opportunity for best practice, both clinically and managerially, are achieved by a smaller number of beds than the theory of the 1980s suggested.
Therefore, the implication is that there should not be more than 1,000 beds at the St. Thomas's site or the Guy's site. It also means that, to make the Guy's hospital site viable in its mix of uses—not across all the specialties, but to make out-patient provision hang together with teaching, elective beds, mental health, and the other services that are necessary, particularly intensive care and accident and emergency—some of the specialties should remain at Guy's. I am happy to debate what they should be, but there are strong arguments that cardiac or cardiological services should stay. I ask the Minister to consider objectively—taking into account the views of the community and its advice—whether that is the right course.
Concerns have been expressed since we last debated the issue. There has been a real set-to in the past couple of months about gynaecological beds. In a letter dated 7 May, the chief executive said that there were no plans to withdraw the ability to admit gynaecological emergency patients at Guy's. By the end of the month, it was clear that emergency beds for gynaecology would be closed by 1 June. There were all sorts of semantics about what was going on. The confidence of the community is not enhanced by such to-ing and fro-ing, and it will be a real exercise to build up its confidence.
Just the other day, I received a letter from the chief executive of my local health authority—Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority. He has always been extremely helpful and constructive, and I have always valued his help. He tells me that his authority has a tough job ahead to ensure that it can set a balanced budget for next year, because it does not have enough resources. Some £19 million or £20 million will have to

be cut. If the health authority is to have less money to spend, it will not be able to afford to spend as much money on services at local hospitals such as Guy's. We should not be spending that extra money anyway, if savings can be made on the Guy's site.
That is all the more reason for listening to the voices in the community that are saying to the Government, "Please let's talk about and get right the balance of beds. Please let's talk about and get right the best use of the buildings. Please let's talk about and get right the outturn of the strategic change in health services in London," in an area where the population is increasing and where demand is increasing. The Government know that the community needs hospitals such as Guy's to be functioning fully.
I end with a quotation from a letter that was sent to me. It is from somebody who wrote to the secretary of the nurses league and attended a commemorative event when the last Guy's nurses graduated just over a month ago:
May 11th must have been one of the most thought provoking days for all of us who experienced the overwhelming standing-room-only response in Southwark Cathedral and attended the AGM of the nurses league that afternoon. In fact, my thoughts have been so provoked that I am absolutely livid that Guy's was set up from the beginning, first as the flagship trust, and then as the fall guy in the NHS restructuring programme. Addresses to the AGM set out in detail events which affect the status of Guy's since 1991.
The letter goes on to express the concern of a former nurse from Guy's who is not sure that the Government and the other parts of the health service will ensure that we have a fully functioning, viable hospital. For the reputation of the health service, for the sake of the best treatment available in Britain in some areas of medicine and for the local community, it is vital that Guy's hospital survives as a flourishing hospital.
I hope that the Minister will give me reassurance. I hope that the Government are open to adjusting their current plan where evidence shows that it can be adjusted to the advantage of everybody.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on his success in securing the debate. I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond. As always, he spoke knowledgeably and eloquently about health services for his constituents. I can assure him that the Government are equally concerned that the best possible health services are available to the people of south-east London.
The reorganisation of services at Guy's and St. Thomas's trust has generated strong feelings locally, and fears for the future of Guy's hospital. I recognised those concerns in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The debate provides me with the opportunity to explain to hon. Members the reasons why the changes are necessary, and the significant benefits to health care provision that they will bring. I hope that I shall be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that Guy's has an important and exciting future in the provision of local health care, medical education and research.
I should also refer to the King's College London Bill, as the hon. Gentleman did, which my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) brought to the House for its Second Reading


on 24 June. The Bill is designed to bring about the merger of King's College hospital and the united medical and dental school. Although independent of the health service changes at Guy's hospital, the merger and the health service changes reinforce each other. There are close working partnerships between the NHS and London university, to ensure that plans are co-ordinated and achieve a coherent, consistent and properly managed change.
During the earlier debate, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others made various points, some of which the hon. Gentleman repeated today. I particularly noted what he said about the need for a sufficient number of in-patient beds to provide appropriate work experience for students, and about the undesirability of unnecessary travelling around south-east London. As I have said, there will be at least 112 beds in the new Guy's hospital, and a certain amount of travelling will be inevitable regardless of the configuration, because Cornwall house—which will be part of the development—and King's College, St Thomas's and Guy's are all at different sites. I noted the hon. Gentleman's general points, however, and I shall do my best to ensure that Ministers respond to what he and others said.
The changes agreed for Guy's and St Thomas's were decided on against a background of changing patient needs. The aim is to develop the service to enable it to respond to those needs, and to rising expectations and medical advances. Guy's and St Thomas's between them are larger than is necessary to provide the services required by residents, and the specialist service for which some patients travel further. The split-site arrangement is both inefficient and detrimental to good patient care, notwithstanding the dedication and hard work of the trust's medical and nursing staff, to which, like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I pay tribute. The two hospitals are little more than a mile apart, and both are accessible from the surrounding area.
The trust considered a range of options for amalgamating services to create stronger single departments, avoiding unnecessary duplication and freeing space for medical education and research. The agreed changes build on the best features of the two hospitals. The division of services between the hospitals has been chosen because it concentrates medical staff and facilities related to accident and emergency services in one hospital, which is the arrangement preferred by doctors. In-patient and specialist services are to be consolidated on the St Thomas's site, and Guy's hospital is to be developed at the leading edge of future medical technology and service delivery as a major centre for planned patient care, offering a comprehensive range of high-quality diagnostic and treatment services for patients who generally do not require an overnight stay.
Essentially, Guy's will remain a major hospital site, focusing on planned care services. Those will include a range of out-patient, day-care and elective in-patient surgical services, centred in the new Guy's phase 3 development. The decision to use St Thomas's rather than Guy's as the site for the accident and emergency hospital was made for a number of reasons; the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the arguments. The local population served by the A and E department at St Thomas's is half

as large again as that served by Guy's, and twice as large during the working day. It is also easier for ambulances to get to, and there has recently been a major extension to it.
Incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman may know, St. Thomas's started off on the site of London Bridge station, and Guy's developed next to it. Originally, the two hospitals were close together.
Overall, we believe that the changes yield the most efficient and clinically coherent balance of services between the Guy's and St Thomas's sites. They give Guy's an exciting future as both a community-style hospital and a world-class centre at the forefront of new developments in medical education and research. Guy's will continue to be a substantial provider of health care. The ambulatory care centre will include a day-case surgery and other single-day treatments, a development centre for minimally invasive therapy including endoscopy, a wide range of out-patient clinics, a new diagnostic centre and a minor injuries unit. As I said earlier, the centre for planned surgery will contain some 112 beds, operating theatres and other facilities.
I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the distribution of specialties between the two sites, but obviously the intention is to achieve what the Government and, I hope, clinicians regard as the most sensible arrangement for specialties. Moreover, by giving Guy's that framework of care, we are putting it at the leading edge not only of medical research and technology—I hope that the combination will achieve that—but of the developing area of day-case surgery, which is expanding far more rapidly than the traditional services. I think that that opportunity is very important.
The dental hospital and school at Guy's will continue to provide services for the local population, and also specialist services for patients from further afield. The unification of the medical schools, and the co-location of teaching and research facilities with clinical services on the Guy's site, will bring benefits to both patients and education and research. Obviously, the changes cannot happen overnight; accident and emergency services will remain at Guy's until building developments at St. Thomas's are completed, as will cancer and kidney treatment.
In all, the developments at Guy's will mean no change for about 80 per cent. of visits by patients who currently look to Guy's. Clearly the hospital has a future, and we believe that it is a very exciting future.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the Guy's phase 3 development. There were two aspects to his concern—the future use of phase 3 in the light of service reconfigurations, and the management of phase 3 as a construction project. The phase 3 development was designed with out-patient services and research very much in mind, and under the plans it will be used substantially in line with its design. It will be seen as particularly well suited to the future role of Guy's hospital in providing a one-stop patient service, focused on out-patients and day-case patients, enabling diagnosis and decisions about treatment to be accomplished in a single visit.
The trust estimates that 75 per cent. of the space involved in phase 3 will be used as originally intended. That includes the united medical and dental school. The use of the remainder, and any other space on the Guy's site not taken by the university, is a matter for the trust:


it must decide how the space that it retains can best be used. Trusts own and are fully responsible for the capital assets transferred to them, and bearing the cost and responsibility of ownership is a powerful incentive for them to make the best use of those assets.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister assure me that, as far as he is aware, it is 100 per cent. certain that the space that he described as not designated for a specific use will continue to be used for health service provision?

Mr. Horam: I repeat that 75 per cent. of the phase 3 space will be used as originally intended.
Let me bring the hon. Gentleman up to date on the construction of phase 3, as far as I am able. As he said, there have been a number of problems, but they are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The trust is negotiating an alternative commercial settlement, which will require the approval of the NHS chief executive and the agreement of the Treasury. That settlement is linked with proposed amendments to the fabric of Guy's phase 3 to reflect the change in the use of the building since its original design, and will also deal with other problems along the way. The contract will be separate from, but linked to, the commercial settlement.
Detailed heads of terms have now been signed, and a programme of work has been agreed that should enable the building to be completed in a modified form by the summer of 1997. I understand the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about the dates that have been mentioned in the past, but I hope that this will be a red-letter day, if not a Jerusalem day, for Guy's. The target date for the move out of Hunt's house is also the summer of next year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those developments will be examined by the Public Accounts Committee after the examination currently being conducted by the National Audit Office. I cannot help him in that regard, however, because the timing is a matter for the NAO rather than the Government. I do not know what the present situation is, but there will be an NAO report, followed, I have no doubt, by a PAC hearing.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that, while a good deal of public money is being spent, it should be spent wisely, and we should not revise the plan in such a way that it is wasted. A good deal of money certainly is being spent—"not only the £150 million that includes Guy's phase 3, but a further £140 million. Most of it is being spent at Guy's on the private finance initiative project involving the united medical and dental school—we hope that that will be forthcoming in due course—and a further £117 million is being spent on the other PH project, admittedly involving St Thomas's more than Guy's. All that, plus the refurbishment and improvement along the way, shows the extent to which the Government believe that it is worth spending a lot of money on Guy's to give it the exciting future that we believe it has.

Bolton Magistrates Court

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise an important matter in my constituency: the need for new magistrates courts in Bolton. Whenever I have conducted an opinion poll in my constituency, law and order has always come out as my constituents' top concern and therefore the efficient administration of justice in Bolton is of the highest priority.
The Government admitted the need for new magistrates courts in Bolton as far back as 1989. Everyone in Bolton had been confident that, by now, work would definitely have started on the new buildings. The present courts were built in the 1930s with, initially, just two courtrooms, but the increasing pressure of work has led to eight courtrooms being squeezed into the original building, with totally inadequate facilities for everyone involved. Not only the general public, but the staff who work there, the lawyers, the reporters and everyone concerned with the administration of the courts have to suffer intolerable conditions.
I notice that page 4 of the Government's victims charter clearly says to the public:
You can expect if you have to go to court as a witness you will be treated with respect and sensitivity.
You can ask to wait separately from those involved in the case.
Sadly, in Bolton, that is not true. While waiting to go in, victims and their assailants are forced to sit hugger-mugger next to each other in the corridor outside the court, to the obvious distress of the innocent victims. The other day, a social worker was assaulted while waiting to go into court.
The Association of Magisterial Officers has produced a leaflet emphasising the need for decent facilities. It says:
The physical environment of court buildings and courts are a significant factor in creating an effective atmosphere for local justice to be conducted. Each building should recognise and meet the differing needs of all users and should offer, as a minimum, the following: discrete waiting areas, separate facilities for families and children, non-smoking environment with designated smoking area, creches, public telephones, refreshment facilities, facilities for victim support and witness care, access and toilet facilities for wheelchair users, audio induction loops, facilities for nursing mothers and for baby changing, security arrangements which ensure a non-threatening and secure environment.
A service which is community based must be accessible to all members of the community. The court should be located in a central position with good affordable public transport and adequate car parking for its users. All persons including those with physical disabilities must be catered for.
The Minister will be aware of the information published by the Lord Chancellor's Department showing courts' performance, including one showing the basic quality of service. A sheet headed "1995 MIS indicator values … clerkship category: H" on the performance of Bolton and the quality of service shows that the average courtroom has 48 interview rooms, whereas Bolton has only 20 interview rooms, and that on average there are 38 telephones available for professional users, but only seven, on average, in Bolton. On average, there are 25 separate waiting areas for domestic and juvenile cases, but Bolton has none. There should be, on average, 25 waiting areas for victims and witnesses, but there are none in Bolton. On average, there are three facilities for


mothers and children in other courtrooms, but Bolton has none, so clearly Bolton is unable to give the quality of service.
An overall score for quality of service is calculated by a complicated formula. It shows that Bolton has a score of only 607, compared with an average of 812. The best courts have a score of 1,221. Bolton's score is the lowest, so Bolton has the lowest quality of service of any court in clerkship category H. Therefore, without doubt, there must be an improvement in the service in Bolton.
Bolton nevertheless runs its overcrowded courts extremely efficiently. Another sheet produced by the Department shows the cost per weighted case. Bolton comes out with a cost of £18.50 per case, compared with an average that I have calculated of £22.75. That compares with the high figure of £27.80 in nearby Bury, so clearly Bolton is providing its service efficiently. We are getting administration on the cheap in Bolton, at the cost of services that should be provided.
The courtrooms in Bolton are in use for more than 7,400 hours per year—the highest in Greater Manchester, outside Manchester city itself. The average weighted cost per case for Bolton, which has 77,000 cases, comes out at £18.50. I calculate that, on the number of cases being transacted in Bolton each year, that is saving the Government more than £250,000 a year, so we have paid for our new courtrooms already.
That is all to the massive credit of Bolton's excellent team, brilliantly led by Peter Dawson, the chief clerk to the court, his deputy Robert Walker and the excellent chairman of the bench, Mr. Frank Woods. Bolton deserves every favourable consideration by the Government, instead of which it has been let down abominably.
More than seven years ago, the Government admitted the need for the new courts and we were delighted when, in 1994, we were given the go ahead. The Lord Chancellor kindly accepted my invitation to visit Bolton in autumn 1995 to lay the foundation stone. We set the date for 17 November 1995. In January that year, the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to the council, somewhat ironically urging that there should be no slippage by anyone responsible in Bolton.
The council acted promptly. Tenders were sent out soon after and, in August, tenders were opened from seven national companies that bid for the contract, worth approximately £8 million. In September, the consultative committee of the local authority and the Magistrates Courts Committee advised the successful tenderer that they had approved his tender at a cost of £7.5 million, which was well within the overall cost limit of £8.7 million.
Those tenders were submitted in good faith by private sector firms that had incurred the cost of tendering, and the successful tenderer should have been awarded the contract, but the private sector was let down badly. All of a sudden, out of the blue—or perhaps it was out of the red—the Treasury stepped in to stop the contract and on 2 October 1995 the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to the council to stop the tender being placed, literally on the day that that was going to happen.
Surprisingly, the Lord Chancellor still expected the new courts to go ahead. Perhaps it was a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, because I

received a letter dated 10 October from the diary secretary suggesting a new date for the Lord Chancellor to visit Bolton—Friday 26 April 1996. That suggested to us in Bolton that there had been a bit of a delay, but that we could look forward to matters still proceeding, with any new financing arrangements that might be decided. Can the Minister confirm that that was the position on 10 October when that letter was written? Or was it just that one hand did not know what the other was doing?
On 20 December, the former Minister kindly met a delegation from Bolton, including Peter Dawson, and Roger Widdicar, then chairman of the bench, and the architect working in the town hall, who came to press for an early decision. A total of £600,000 of public money had already been spent on costs and fees. The former Minister led us to believe that the Lord Chancellor's Department was hoping that 10 successful schemes would be announced in the coming year. Leaving that meeting, we were fairly confident of progress although there had been a little delay. Sadly, the Lord Chancellor is still no nearer visiting Bolton. We would be delighted to see him, but we do not know when that might be; nor do we know if Bolton will ever get its new court.
What on earth has gone wrong? It seems that the Government have run out of money. Yesterday's financial statement confirmed that the national debt has doubled to more than £350 billion since 1990 when the Prime Minister came to power. He was formerly a banker and perhaps his greatest achievement has been to persuade the money markets to accept such massive debt. Plainly, such spending had to stop and it was Bolton's great misfortune to be at the door just as the Government decided to slam it shut. It is doubly unfair to Bolton, whose thrift saved the money to pay for the new court by running the present system more efficiently than any other in Greater Manchester. If every Government operation were run as efficiently as Bolton's court system, there would be plenty of money to pay for a new court.
It is said that the magic private finance initiative will provide for all our needs. The Government announced that the PFI would pay for the new court buildings, but they had not done their homework. At a meeting on 27 March it was felt that, even after six months, all would be well, but the Lord Chancellor's Department wrote on 10 April saying, in effect, "Oh dear, we can't do it—it's illegal." In a letter to Bolton's chief executive, Mr. David Adlington stated that
the Justices of the Peace Act specifically excludes capital expenditure from revenue grant.
The letter stated that amending the Act would require primary legislation. The Government have not made time available for primary legislation, so where are we now? The Lord Chancellor's Department promised to give Bolton guidance by January of this year on how the PH would work, but we are still waiting for that guidance.
I read in the papers about confusion the length and breadth of the country. A headline in The Observer on Sunday states:
PFI at risk of collapse, warns Clarke".
What way is that for us to get our new magistrates court? Perhaps the Minister will tell us how we can expect to proceed.
I understand that the Minister who is particularly responsible is the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was formerly a Home Office Minister.


In 1992, when he was at the Home Office, he visited the magistrates court and agreed that it was necessary to renew it. That Treasury Minister is therefore aware of the need. He is also responsible for the administration of the PFI. Yet he seems to be one of the problems preventing us from proceeding.
On 27 November last year, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter about the joys of the PFI. In the letter he states that the PFI is wonderful and under the heading, "Why is this better?" he says that
the public get the service that they need.
Sadly, that is not happening in Bolton.
As I have said, the weekend press was full of alarms and excursions and I understand that the Prime Minister had a heated meeting with the heads of major Departments to find out what had gone wrong. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor's Department was represented at that meeting. It certainly should have been, so that the Prime Minister could hear about what was happening in Bolton.
How are we in Bolton to make our decisions? We have to use temporary accommodation to keep going. The Minister will be aware of that, because on account of it there was an application for £100,000 to meet costs. Bolton needs to provide a full service. The people there should not have to travel to Wigan, Rochdale, Bury or Salford because the Government have decided that the courts should be amalgamated in the new scheme. I had a letter a short time ago from Peter Dawson, who said that he felt that the amalgamation would result in the loss of local identity and control of magistrates courts. I fear that that is what we are experiencing. If the Government think that somehow the work load in Bolton can be transferred to courts elsewhere, I can tell them that that is certainly not the service that people in Bolton expect.
Obviously, we need to provide a good local service. There is enough difficulty getting some witnesses to come to court without telling them that they might have to go to a different town. To do that would throw away the benefits of Bolton's efficient, low-cost service, and it would massively disadvantage the public.
The PFI model projects a requirement in Bolton rising from 7,500 court hours a year to 9,500 a year over 20 years. It is clear that the Government do not expect any diminution in the demand for court services in Bolton. It might be thought that if law and order measures were working well we would not need all the court hours, but Government figures on the future projected need for court services in Bolton expect continued expansion.
We need clear instructions and guidance on how to proceed, and I suggest that the Minister's best course would be to tell the Treasury that we should be excused from the PR. We were caught in the door at the last minute and I do not think that at that time anyone realised that it would be illegal to use the PR in Bolton. Excusing us would be the best course, if only on the ground that the best site for the court, which is next door to the existing one in Cheadle square, is owned by the local authority which has agreed to provide it. How could a PR for a site somewhere else, paid for by private sector funds, meet the cost of the local authority providing a site at Cheadle square?
The Minister should demand that the Treasury reinstate the project and say that it is unsuitable for the PR. If he insists on the PFI, we want clear ground rules and a proper

timetable so that we can get on with the job. If he does not do that, I fear that we shall never have the new courts that Bolton justly deserves. The Government say that they want to improve justice, but is that just rhetoric? An answer to a parliamentary question on 4 July shows that the average delay in Greater Manchester in bringing indictable offences to court for completion was 112 days. That is far too long, but if we do not have efficient courts how can we reduce it?
I understand that four other authorities are in the same difficulty as Bolton. They are Bedfordshire, Birmingham, Humberside and Newcastle upon Tyne. Therefore, the issue concerns not just Bolton. I congratulate all those people in Bolton, including Mr. Grogan and the town hall team, who have worked so hard. Frank Woods, the excellent chairman of the Bolton magistrates courts committee, recently sent a letter to the Bolton Evening News and I will end by quoting from it. It states:
We shall continue with the utmost determination to pursue our aim of achieving a new court complex for Bolton".
I certainly exonerate the recently appointed Minister from the previous failings of his Department, of which the Government should be thoroughly ashamed. I look forward to hearing how we can proceed with confidence to have new court buildings in Bolton as soon as possible.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on securing a debate on this important issue and I welcome his support for the proposed scheme to provide a new magistrates court in Bolton. I commend him for the excellent way in which he presented his strong and powerful case. He is right to draw my attention again to the concern of his constituents about the efficient administration of law and order and to say that the Lord Chancellor's Department must do all that it can to secure that. And so we shall.
I fully accept that the courthouse in Bolton has outgrown its original purpose. I understand that it was designed to have three courtrooms but that it now sits with up to nine courts and that further growth is expected. The extra courtrooms have been provided by adapting the building over the years and, as a result, the supporting facilities for all those who use the building are clearly no longer adequate. As my hon. Friend knows, I have not seen Bolton court, but I can imagine what it is like and if he invites me I will certainly go to Bolton to see it. He makes a strong case for a new building. Investment in new facilities is plainly needed and the case for a new courthouse in Bolton has been accepted. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his considerable efforts over the years to secure improved accommodation for the provision of local justice.
As I said, we accept the case for a new courthouse in Bolton, but I must make one matter clear: it will be built under the Government's private finance initiative and in no other way. The search for privately financed solutions in place of publicly funded capital projects is now being taken up across the broad spectrum of public service activity, and the Government are committed to delivering the PR approach. That message was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only last week. Meeting the accommodation needs of magistrates courts


is no exception, and my officials have been working towards the launch of the entire forward building programme for the PFI route. So I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East that, contrary to his reading of the Sunday newspapers, the PFI is certainly not confused but is alive and kicking.
The PFI represents a completely new approach. It presents challenges and uncertainties, although I understand that some people may feel apprehensive about the prospect of securing their new courthouse by this procurement route. There has, of course, never been an absolute guarantee of public funding under traditional arrangements, and even under the PH, delivery of the programme will always be subject to what the taxpayer can afford.
Recognising that fact, my officials held a workshop with representatives of magistrates courts committees, local authority associations and the private sector. The workshop considered how the PH should be applied to magistrates courts to test how the PH could meet their particular requirements. The PH will involve the private sector owning the building, providing accommodation on a service basis, and accepting the transfer of certain risks in so doing. Crucially, the workshop exercise also showed that value for money can be achieved with this level of private sector involvement, while still allowing magistrates and their staff to carry out the courts' functions.
I am well aware that the Bolton magistrates courts committee—with the metropolitan borough council and with other courts committees and authorities which have schemes in the building programme—are anxious to proceed. Sadly, however, in April officials had to notify local authorities and MCCs that implementation was being delayed while certain accounting arrangements were resolved, and I should like to take a moment to explain the background to that.
Although local authorities have a statutory duty to provide magistrates courts with accommodation, either directly or by procuring from the private sector, my Department meets 80 per cent. of that cost by way of grant. That is true whether the cost involves a capital scheme or is met from revenue. The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 sets out the basis on which grant is provided and contains a provision that prevents revenue grant being used for capital purposes. We had to be sure that the revenue grant that would be available to authorities could be used for meeting PFI costs, and we have now researched the matter thoroughly.
I am pleased to be able to announce today that that doubt has been removed. Proposals recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, which will ease the adoption of the PFI by local authorities, have the effect of clarifying the accounting position. I am also grateful to the members of the private finance panel, who are involved in discussions with industry and accounting organisations to pave the way for PFI projects to proceed. Draft regulations affecting local authority capital finance were published by the Department of the Environment earlier this week and deal with the particular accounting obstacle holding up implementation of the magistrates courts building programme under the PFI. I am therefore

satisfied that the accounting obstacle has been resolved, and I am pleased to announce that the PFI programme will now be launched.
I mentioned that we have a building programme; in fact, there are currently 50 schemes awaiting funding. They will continue to be ordered into a programme to be delivered over a number of years. Although the private sector will be asked to make the initial investment, it will levy a charge for the provision of the required accommodation and related services.
In the case of magistrates courts, there is little scope for those charges being met by raising money from other sources. Some income may be generated from catering, car parking or use of spare accommodation, but in practice the charge will continue to be met by the local authority and will require grant support from the Government. That is subject to public expenditure cash limits in the same way as capital has been. The rate at which the programme can be delivered is therefore subject to the availability of funding, as it always has been. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, who is a shrewd and successful business man, will understand that.
The delay of several months that has occurred while the accounting problem that I mentioned earlier was resolved will mean that some new courts will not be available as early as was originally planned. Obviously, I regret that. It must be recognised that those original plans would have had to be revised in any event, in response to the need to restrain public spending. Clearly those schemes that were close to being started will be most affected, and there is no question in my mind but that Bolton is one such scheme. In drawing up the revised programme, we shall be looking to meet those in the greatest need first, but we will take account of any delay that has been experienced. The implementation programme will be structured to allow lessons learnt from a "pathfinder" project to be applied to projects that will follow in phases. That will improve the chances of achieving successful agreements.
I am pleased to be able to confirm that the Bolton scheme, which had indeed reached an advanced stage of planning, will be among the first group invited to prepare proposals. It is expected that authorities will be able to advertise some of those schemes this autumn and the remainder in the next financial year, according to the level of funding available. Once advertised, I expect negotiations to proceed through to contract and service delivery.
I am keen to see Bolton, as with all magistrates courts committees in a similar situation, working imaginatively with the private sector to secure value-for-money projects which serve the community well. I commend the Bolton magistrates courts committee for the efficient way in which it is running that difficult court building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East has clearly explained in this debate.
For Bolton, working imaginatively means that the magistrates courts committee will need to review its needs in the light of its current and expected work load and of any organisational changes that are likely to take place. In particular, it will need to take account of the planned amalgamation with neighbouring MCCs, and the likely effect of that on the need for and location of new court facilities across the new MCC area.
That review will then form the basis of a revised business case, to be sent to my officials by the end of September with a draft PFI brief and advertisement, to enable them to ensure that those who face the most difficult operational problems and are best able to demonstrate that they are ready to proceed with the PFI are given priority. I shall of course listen to the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East—which will no doubt be made in September, hot on the heels of any proposals made by the Bolton magistrates courts committee.
It is therefore still our position that the new Bolton magistrates court will proceed, but it will proceed under the PFI scheme. The costs and fees that have already been incurred in bringing the scheme to the current level, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East referred, need not be wasted.
As I have already mentioned, the PFI will require a new and more imaginative approach by all those concerned if we are to reap the full benefits of involving the private sector. It will not be sufficient simply to pick up the threads of existing schemes. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East to take this message back to his magistrates courts committee: it is not merely a matter of dusting off the existing scheme—we are now looking for a more imaginative scheme, and for more active involvement of the private sector to be apparent in the proposal that is made in September.
Time and again, the private sector has demonstrated its capacity to produce exciting and imaginative solutions to problems. Our approach to the PFI must be geared to ensuring that we enjoy the benefits that will flow if the private sector is given a free reign to apply those skills to the problem of meeting the needs of the magistrates court service.
This debate has therefore come at a pivotal moment in provision of magistrates courts. The theoretical obstacles have been put behind us, and we are about to embark on the practical challenge of delivering the programme. Each proposal will be different and will have to be assessed on its merits. As that will be new to everyone concerned, my officials will provide local authorities and MCCs with active support, which will ensure that lessons learnt are collectively available for the benefit of all.
Detailed guidance and procedures have been prepared since the intention to pursue the PFI was announced. We shall also be arranging a number of seminars to help those involved to get off to a sound start and to avoid any further delay. I therefore genuinely hope that it will not be too long before the Bolton project can proceed, and we are celebrating the opening of a new magistrates courthouse in Bolton. It will, of course, be a tribute to the tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, who has ensured that the critical importance of the Bolton project has been kept at the forefront of everyone's mind.

It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (APPROVED PREMISES FOR MARRIAGE) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed.

BELFAST CHARITABLE SOCIETY BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration read.

Considered; to be read the Third time.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To he read the Third time upon Tuesday 16 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

BBC World Service

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the service provided to British interests abroad by the BBC World Service. [35150]

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that the BBC World Service continues to provide a full range of language services. [35165]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): The World Service is an important national asset and makes a very valuable contribution to the promotion of the United Kingdom overseas.
The Government attach great importance to the maintenance of successful language services within the World Service.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the World Service has been able to preserve standards of truthful news, decency and balanced discussion, which have made it our most effective foreign ambassador, is the Minister aware that the cuts in the capital and revenue programme, allied to fundamental reorganisation, will inevitably lead to the curbing of some language services? Why do the Government feel obliged to upset something that is working perfectly well in our interests when there are so many things that require urgent attention?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend, with the best of intentions, is getting two things muddled up. The Government are not cutting the financing of the World Service by anything like as much as the cuts to the diplomatic wing would have suggested. We have suffered a cut of 7 per cent. in the diplomatic wing and of only 4.7 per cent. in funding for the World Service. The reorganisation of the World Service within the BBC is a matter for the BBC governors, and we have sought—and received—assurances that those changes will not in any way diminish the value and quality of the services provided.

Mr. McKelvey: Hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried that the Minister seems to be accepting the situation and is not concerned about the continuation of the service. There is widespread concern that the service will be harmed in some way. Will the Minister seriously consider stopping the reorganisation now with a view to having proper consultation with the members of staff—they have never been consulted—Ministers and representatives of those millions of beneficiaries throughout the world who fear that some harm will be done to the service? Will the Minister give that assurance?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are as concerned as any hon. Member that the quality of the World Service should be

maintained. We are in close consultation with the BBC governors. We intend to ensure that the quality of the World Service is maintained, and we will do all we can to ensure that the governors stick to their promise to us that that will be the case.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Minister has just said that the reconstruction of the World Service is a matter for the BBC governors. Surely the essential difference is that the World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whereas the rest of the BBC is financed by the licence fee. Is my hon. Friend aware there is very great worry on both sides of the House about how the separate ethos and identity of the World Service can be maintained if all news is to be covered by BBC Worldwide and all production is to be by BBC Features? Surely in those circumstances it will be extremely hard for BBC World Service to maintain that separate identity which is at the heart of its success.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can assure my right hon. Friend that the mood of the House is not lost upon me. I reiterate as firmly as I can that the Government are determined to ensure that the quality of the World Service will be maintained. He is right to say that, because it is funded by grant in aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we have a certain leverage in that regard—and we shall most certainly use it.

Mr. Shore: The Minister's reply is not sufficient to satisfy the House. Of course the Government should be concerned about the future of the World Service, but the point has already been made that the World Service is financed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through grant in aid, and a proposal to merge the World Service with, or to swallow it up in, the domestic-based BBC is a major step that nobody who studies these matters would welcome.
The matter does not concern only the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministers in that Department. Ultimately, the grant in aid is provided because the House approves it. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the proposal by the chairman and the director-general of the BBC will now be suspended until there has been proper, full consultation in which the House of Commons is able to take an active part.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As I said earlier, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in close consultation with the governors, Mr. Birt and the BBC to ensure that the quality of the World Service is not affected by the proposed changes—at present they are proposals, not a fait accompli. We shall look closely to ensure that their stated purposes—to make the World Service cost-efficient and good value for money and to adapt it to the new digital systems—are the outcome. There is no question of merging the World Service in such a way as to remove its particular character. We shall do everything we can to ensure that that is not the case. As it is a Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant in aid service, we have a considerable weight that we intend to use to the full.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Can my hon. Friend name one more cost-effective and successful service than the BBC World Service?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If my hon. Friend is referring to other broadcast services, the current World Service is absolutely at the top of its league. However, times change and new systems have to be introduced and a constant search for continuing cost-efficiency must be encouraged.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will be aware of the well-known military adage that one should never reinforce failure, the corollary of which is to reinforce and exploit success—in this case, the acknowledged success of the World Service. If the World Service is so successful, why is it constantly engaged in a battle for funding? Can he think of any other activity funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that gives such good value, pound for pound, as the BBC World Service?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a former colleague on the Defence Committee, does well to use a defence parallel. We have done a great deal for the World Service. Since the Government have been in office, direct expenditure on the World Service has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms. We are extremely conscious of the value of the World Service and we shall continue to do everything in our power to ensure its continued quality. It goes out over 900 re-broadcasting stations and it is heard all over the world. We are constantly introducing new languages—we recently introduced Uzbek and Macedonian, for example. It is expanding and doing well. It is no good Opposition Members attacking us. I should like to know what guarantees they can provide on Treasury funding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or any other Government Department.

Mr. Batiste: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that those who, like Mohammed al-Masari, incite racial hatred will not be given the opportunity to peddle their evil propaganda on the World Service?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It would be absolutely outrageous if Mr. al-Masari were to use the World Service or any other British service to peddle incitement to dissent in the middle east.

Mr. Robin Cook: Why does the Minister not ask John Birt how costs can possibly be cut by merging the BBC World Service with the rest of the BBC? How can it be cheaper to buy in programmes from the rest of the BBC when BBC World Service production costs are already 36 per cent. cheaper than the BBC's and its overheads are 44 per cent. cheaper? Does he recall that President Mandela said of his years in prison:
what we really wanted"—
was—
the BBC World Service".
Would not the week of President Mandela's state visit be a good time to tell John Birt to drop the proposals that threaten the distinctive ethos of the BBC World Service that has given comfort to supporters of democracy around the world and brought respect for Britain from the world?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is a typical example of the right hon. Gentleman peddling trouble before anything has happened. Of course we are going to ask Mr. Birt those questions. Of course we shall seek reassurances

from him that the World Service will not be in any way worse as a result of the changes. The right hon. Gentleman is making assumptions about what is being proposed. He says that what is proposed will be less effective than the arrangements under which the World Service has been operating, but he has not seen the detailed proposals. We have only just seen them, and we are in close consultation with the BBC to ensure that they are effective. We will not tolerate Mr. Birt, the BBC or anybody else fiddling with the World Service in such a way that it gets worse rather than better.

Mr. Walden: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the second time in several months that we have discussed the World Service? There must be something worse, which is performing rather less well, to which people could devote their attention. I understand that the Government have invested an awful lot of money in the World Service. Is it not time to come to a self-denying ordinance with Mr. John Birt and leave the World Service alone for a while?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can only repeat to my hon. Friend that we are in detailed discussions with Mr. Birt and others at the BBC. We must look for continued efficiency and be prepared to change as BBC transmission techniques change. We cannot just stick our heads in the mud. We are determined that the World Service should continue to provide the marvellous representation of this nation that it always has.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what responses he has received to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper on the intergovernmental conference. [35162]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The way in which the British case has been put in the White Paper has been welcomed by many in this House and more widely. The member states, of course, hold a variety of views on the proposals.

Mr. Home Robertson: As a citizen of a country that has fairly successfully shared a common currency and, indeed, a common supreme court with its neighbours for 289 years without losing the identity of either Scots law, as the Secretary of State should know, or the pound Scots, may I urge the Secretary of State to be less timorous about the concept of a single European currency and a European social charter? For a start, why does he not face up to the nationalist backwoodsmen behind him, who want to challenge the authority of the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Rifkind: I am rather puzzled by the comparison that the hon. Gentleman has just drawn. The success of the union of these islands has been because we have created a single state. I did not appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of a united states of Europe.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the first requirements of the IGC's success is that the Commission and the nation states


honour the opt-outs that were obtained at Maastricht? In view of the disgraceful way in which the Commission and other nation states have acted in complete breach of trust by bringing forward the working time directive, will he ensure that the Government say that, until we get an undertaking that the treaty will be amended, we shall, as soon as we hear of the judgment, bring in a policy of general non-co-operation in Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: Were those circumstances to arise, the proper course of action would be to do what we would do if our courts ruled that an Act of Parliament should be interpreted differently from how Parliament originally intended. In those circumstances, one observes the law but uses one's energies to change it back to what it was always intended to be.

Mr. Robin Cook: How can the Government claim that excessive working hours have nothing to do with health and safety when all the evidence confirms that accidents rise sharply with longer hours? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the Government are currently challenging the beef ban before the European Court of Justice. Would not this be an odd time to undermine the authority of the court by rejecting its ruling on the 48-hour working week? Will he therefore assure us that the Government will accept the court's ruling on the working time directive, and will he spare Britain the humiliation of being the only country with a Government prepared to allow employees to be forced to work longer hours against their will?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that Britain is the only major country of the European Union where unemployment has been falling consistently in the past two years. That is because we have resisted imposing foolish burdens on industry, which may look good on paper but which result in people who would otherwise be employed being jobless. The House will note that the Labour party is more concerned with imposing burdens on industry than helping the cause of greater employment.

Mr. Garnier: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received any responses to the White Paper along the lines that there should be further qualified majority voting in subjects not currently covered by it? Will he direct all his energies at the IGC to ensuring that QMV is not extended, and reject any suggestion that, unless QMV is extended, the European Community will grind to a halt?

Mr. Rifkind: Qualified majority voting already applies to wide areas of European Union activity, and I agree that there are no grounds for extending it. The argument often used by Labour Front Benchers, that enlargement of the European Union makes more qualified majority voting essential, is bogus. It has been produced by a total absence of analysis by those who advocate it.

Burundi

Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU partners about the situation in Burundi. [35163]

Mr. Rifkind: We and our European partners are deeply concerned about the situation in Burundi and support the efforts of ex-President Nyerere to negotiate an agreement between the parties.

Mr. Turner: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware of the atrocities and genocide taking place in Burundi. Some 100 people a day are losing their lives and 150,000 people have died in the past three years. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the British Government will take firm action in support, and with the support, of the international community? Will he guarantee that they will not allow Burundi to suffer the same fate as Rwanda suffered and that we shall have international action now?

Mr. Rifkind: No one could be indifferent to the hundreds of thousands of people massacred in Rwanda. We are all conscious that comparable risks exist today in Burundi. That calls for effective preventive diplomacy to try to anticipate those concerns. At this stage, we must take action by both diplomatic and other means to ensure that such ghastly atrocities are not repeated. Much good work is being done, and the United Kingdom will certainly play its part in the diplomatic and other efforts currently being made.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a sad fact that Burundi cannot look to the EU for effective succour? Is not the EU's projected draft budget for humanitarian and food aid set to drop by 1 per cent. this year, whereas the projected budget for Commission administration will rise by 5 per cent., the Mediterranean countries' budget will rise by no less than 48 per cent., and the common agricultural policy, which keeps out the food of primary producing countries, is set to rise by 2.48 per cent.? Those are hardly the priorities that will help Burundi.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's point. Burundi's main requirement at the moment, however, is not economic help but help of another kind. I endorse the view that the European Union must readjust its priorities to the real needs of those it tries to help.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Foreign Secretary is right when he says that Burundi's needs at the moment are not economic, but may I remind him that, when Rwanda drifted into genocide, the world stood back and let it happen? Words are not enough in this case. The Foreign Secretary has already given some credit to the efforts of former President Nyerere. Do the British Government actively support the peace initiative of the Organisation of African Unity and the possibility of a military force entering Burundi? What practical steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure that, at United Nations level, practical action is taken that will make a real difference on the ground? In Rwanda, such action was lacking.

Mr. Rifkind: We welcome the action of any responsible persons or organisations that might help in this process. We believe that any major international initiative should be under the authority of the United Nations, but there are various ways in which that authority could be provided.

Kashmir

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent elections in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [35164]

Mr. Rifkind: The complex conditions in the Kashmir valley make it impossible to give a clear-cut view.

Mr. Heppell: As the Minister has learnt from a report by a British official at the Delhi high commission of the intimidation and coercion that is taking place in Kashmir, does he think that we should send a clear message to the Indian Government that we will not accept as free and fair an election that is conducted at the point of a gun?

Mr. Rifkind: We believe that, in Kashmir, proper free and fair elections can play a part in leading the way from violence toward dialogue and a political settlement of these difficult problems. Elections must be free and fair if they are to carry the authority that we should all like.

Mr. Waller: In view of the many well-documented allegations that have thrown doubt on the outcome of the elections recently held in Jammu and Kashmir, will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the Government of India to admit international observers to the territory for the forthcoming elections that they plan to hold for an assembly in Jammu and Kashmir, so that an impartial assessment can be made then as to whether they are free and fair?

Mr. Rifkind: Permitting observers from other countries to attend is always a valuable way of satisfying the international community of the freedom and fairness of elections. That will be a matter for the Indian Government to decide, but of course it would make an important and significant contribution to the credibility of any electoral process in such a sensitive area.

Mr. Madden: Why is the Foreign Secretary taking this view of the recent elections? It flies in the face of numerous reports by the international media, including The Guardian and The Independent, which reported enormous intimidation and coercion by the 700,000-strong Indian forces in Kashmir of the people of Kashmir. Why on earth is he refusing to publish the report of the British official at the Delhi high commission, who is paid by British taxpayers? British taxpayers are entitled to know whether, in the view of that official, the recent elections were free and fair.

Mr. Rifkind: We are well aware of the reports of undue pressure in the elections, and we are certainly not in a position to dismiss them as unfounded. This is a complex and difficult issue, but I freely agree with the hon. Gentleman and others who have expressed concern about whether the elections can be seen as acceptable by the normal standards that would be applied in such circumstances.

United States of America

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. [35166]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States remain excellent.

Mr. Fabricant: Bearing in mind the excellent news on television this lunchtime of a £1.7 billion investment from Korea which is to create 6,000 jobs in south Wales, and further bearing in mind the fact that the United States economy is going through a period of growth, as is that of the United Kingdom—unlike continental Europe, which is going through recession—is not the policy of the British Government, not to have a blinkered approach in our relationship with Europe, but to strengthen British and American and, indeed, far eastern relations, right?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is a primary purpose of the Government's policy that we should encourage free trade. We look especially to the United States as a major partner in that exercise and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the sooner we can attain the World Trade Organisation target of free trade throughout the world, the better it will be for British industry and the British people.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Have the Government had the opportunity to discuss with the American Administration the outcome of the recent Israeli election? Have they had the opportunity to draw to the attention of the American Administration the excellent statement on the middle east made by the Heads of Government in Florence? If the Government have not had that opportunity, will they make it clear to the American Administration that we want them to make it clear to Mr. Netanyahu, during his visit to the United States, that we expect the new Israeli Government to abide by the international agreement if there is to be peace in the middle east?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The United States Government and Her Majesty's Government are determined to see the peace process in the middle east continue successfully. We are watching very closely the effects of the election of Prime Minister Netanyahu, which I trust will not in any way inhibit the process of the talks and the move towards peace. We will have to watch that as time progresses.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend speculate on how relations between Britain and America would have been affected if we had given up our independent deterrent, as recommended by the leaders of new Labour?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I must admit that there are very few things that I would prefer to speculate on. It would be an horrific prospect, and I am delighted that it did not occur.

Gibraltar

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to secure an end to the delays in crossing the border between Gibraltar and Spain since the new Administration have taken office in Gibraltar. [53167]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I saw the border queues for myself when I was in Gibraltar last week, and the delay on that day was well over an hour. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have made strong representations to the Spanish Government about the delays, and we will continue to do so as firmly and as often as is necessary to put an end to this disgraceful situation.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister do something in the forums of the world to make it clear to other countries that it is not the Spanish position on this matter that it right, but the British and Gibraltarian position on this matter that is right? The Minister could do that by using his diplomatic skills and by using the diplomatic skills of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Will the Minister make a start by raising the issue at the intergovernmental conference later this year?

Mr. Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend spoke to the Spanish Foreign Secretary, Mr. Matutes, a little while ago. Since that discussion, there has been an improvement at the border, but it is not good enough because it is not reliable—it has to be reliable to allow the economy of Gibraltar to progress properly.
We have raised the matter with the European Commission, which understands our position, and with other countries in the European Union. We have also raised the issue in other forums—for example, we have stood by Gibraltar in the United Nations. We have taken up this matter in a variety of forums, and we will continue to pursue the interests of Gibraltar as long and as far as is necessary.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction and acceptance of European proof identity cards as valid travel documents would be one way to reduce frontier delays at any frontier within the European Union? In this respect, Gibraltar is one step ahead of the United Kingdom—we are still talking about identity cards, but Gibraltar has them. What measures will the Government take to try to persuade the Spanish authorities to accept identity cards as valid travel documents?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has a valid point. I have taken up this matter with the European Commission, and it has said that the identity card is acceptable. However, not surprisingly, the Spanish Government have not accepted that, and we are starting that process right now.

Council of Ministers (Majority Voting)

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study his Department has conducted on the advantages and disadvantages of majority voting in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. [35168]

Mr. David Davis: We have considered the issue carefully in consultation with other Government Departments. Our conclusion is that majority voting already applies in those areas of the treaty where it is needed—for example, in the single market and in external trade policy. We do not see the case for extending qualified majority voting.

Mrs. Jackson: Is it the case that, in the fortnight that the Government played hard to get, they used their veto no fewer than 61 times on issues as diverse as cut flowers and the European Year Against Racism? Does the Minister agree that to achieve enlargement of the European Union, some reform of the structural funds is necessary and that agreement on that will not be possible without some change in voting in the Council of Ministers? Is it not plain silly for the Government not to agree to any change in this area? Does not that expose the hypocrisy of the Government's view that they are really in favour of enlargement of the European Union?

Mr. Davis: That argument is completely bogus. If there were a Labour Government—an improbable occurrence—and they pursued the idea that financing limits and financing matters should be conducted on qualified majority voting, they would be the only Government in Europe following that line.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever arguments were advanced in the past in favour of extending qualified majority voting, practice has shown that, whenever we take that step, this country's interests are inevitably overridden by our European partners? Therefore, will he assure the House that the Government will resist any attempt to extend QMV and will maintain our veto?

Mr. Davis: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will resist any attempt to extend QMV. However, I do not agree with one aspect of his remarks: qualified majority voting was an important component in the development of the single market. It has proved an important tool in that respect, but that is as far as it needs to go.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister recognise that, in other areas of the Union's work—particularly with regard to the common agricultural policy—the Government would not have been able to reach agreement in discussions with their partners but for qualified majority voting and eventually a simple majority? Does he accept that the proposal means that, if the Government oppose qualified majority voting on a similar issue in future, they will be looking both ways?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that that problem arose in the first place because of qualified majority voting.

North and South Korea

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and with whom he last had discussions on relations between North and South Korea. [35169]

Mr. Rifkind: I discussed this with my Group of Seven-Group of Eight colleagues at the summit in Lyon.

Mr. French: As a result of today's announcement, my right hon. and learned Friend will have in mind the enormous importance of South Korean inward investment in the United Kingdom. Does he recognise also the South Koreans' deep desire to establish a more sensible and reasonable working relationship with the North Koreans and to deal with the obstacles that stand in their way? Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that more open dialogue is established with North Korea in the interests of stability in the whole of east Asia?

Mr. Rifkind: Our congratulations go to the Welsh Office and to all those who were instrumental in acquiring that massive inward investment from South Korea in the United Kingdom. It is significant that more than 50 per cent. of all Korean investment in the European Union comes to the United Kingdom. That demonstrates the attractiveness of our economy and of the environment that we have created. It proves yet again why unnecessary burdens, such as the social chapter, would only damage this country's well-being.
As to the second aspect of my hon. Friend's question, I agree that dialogue with North Korea can only be helpful. The recent proposals from the United States point in that direction.

Mr. Flynn: Although I congratulate all those involved, including the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency and especially the Labour-controlled Newport borough council on its far-sightedness in preparing the site for this gigantic investment, and although the investment is welcome and will have a marvellous effect on my constituency, does the Foreign Secretary recall that Newport is the cwm silicon—the silicon valley—of south Wales, because the British company, INMOS Ltd., set up and prospered in south Wales until it moved from that site to Italy and France, which have both the social chapter and the minimum wage?

Mr. Rifkind: That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the bulk of investment in the European Union—whether it is from Korea, the United States, Japan or elsewhere—comes to the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind if he has his constituents' interests at heart.

European Community (Legal Integration)

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts concerning the legal integration of the Community member states. [35170]

Mr. David Davis: A number of legal issues are under discussion in the intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the institutions believe that it is their duty to pursue legal integration of the member states at the expense of the member states' discretion in important policy areas? May I congratulate him and the Government on the pan of the White Paper "A Partnership of Nations" that refers to the excessive interpretation of articles of the European treaties? Is it not our duty as a Government, just as we have rolled back the frontiers of the state at home, to start to roll back the frontiers of the state in Europe?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has explained what is known as the federalist ratchet and the Government are committed to stopping that ratchet. He referred to the White Paper in which we announced that we will shortly publish a memorandum on the European Court of Justice that will include proposals, for example, to allow rapid amendment of EU legislation when the court has extended the interpretation beyond what was intended and for an ECJ appeals procedure.
My hon. Friend's second point is most powerful and we will seek changes to those articles of the treaty that have been stretched historically, including 118a, 100a and 130s.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister stop using the intemperate language that he uses to keep his right-wing Back Benchers happy? Does he not realise that the Confederation of British Industry and many leading companies in this country are increasingly concerned about the negative attitude to Europe that comes from the Minister and his colleagues?

Mr. Davis: I can think of nothing that was intemperate in my language in my previous reply. Some of our measures—for example, resistance to the European Court becoming the supreme court—have been addressed publicly by Alain Juppe, the Prime Minister of France.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the CBI; perhaps he should read the speech by Adair Turner shortly after the leader of the Labour party tried to opt for a pick-and-choose social chapter. Mr. Turner pointed out to the leader of the Labour party that he could not have that: he could take an opt-out, as we have, or go all the way, as the Labour party intends.

Mr. Devlin: Why is it so rare for the Government to point out to the public that the European Court of Justice works substantially in the British national interest, because it enforces single market decisions against other countries, or that the British Government have won far more cases in the European Court than they have lost?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right in one respect, but wrong in another. Clearly, he has not looked recently at the White Paper, which points out that very fact. I mentioned the federalist ratchet earlier. We have supported a case at the court about an attempt by the Commission to extend the competence of the Community to accede to the European convention on human rights. The European Court judged that it could not do so.

Intergovernmental Conference

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of countries which share the Government's principal priorities for the IGC. [35171]

Mr. David Davis: The United Kingdom's priorities for the intergovernmental conference are set out in "A Partnership of Nations". In many cases, we have substantial support, but in others less so. The Government will not sign up to an IGC outcome that does not satisfactorily meet our objectives.

Dr. Wright: Did the Minister happen to see the Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph this week, which showed that, for every one person who thought that the British position in Europe had been strengthened by the recent bout of non-co-operation, five people felt that it had been weakened? Can the Minister assure the House that it is still British foreign policy in Europe to seek to win allies? If so, can he explain to some of his Back Benchers that that agenda will be advanced not by seeking yet more spectacular and embarrassing failures but by some solid negotiating successes?

Mr. Davis: Unlike the Labour party, the Government do not run their policy by ballot—[Interruption.]—by opinion polls, by focus groups or other such follow-my-leader methods. What was important about the non-co-operation policy—the Labour party clearly does not care for this—was the fact that it protected an industry of 650,000 people. Non-co-operation delivered protection for that industry and will continue to do so in the coming year.
As for the IGC, we shall of course develop allies in areas. I have only recently talked about Alain Juppé supporting us on the question of the European Court. There will be others too, as we shall see, as the IGC develops.

Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, although the Government will not seek isolation in the forthcoming negotiations, they would not be afraid of isolation if that were to prove necessary to defend Britain's vital interests and to secure changes in European treaties in the interests of those whom we are sent to this place to represent?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is completely right. Unlike the Labour party, if it is necessary to take tough policies, we shall take them.

Ms Quin: On Britain's role in the European Union, what does the Minister of State make of the reported comments of Governor Patten of Hong Kong that he wants a campaign to put Britain back at the heart of Europe? Given that the Prime Minister, when he came to office over five years ago, said that it was his aim to put Britain at the heart of Europe, does it not follow that Governor Patten thinks that the Prime Minister has spectacularly failed in his objective?

Mr. Davis: Exercising leadership in Europe is not a matter of giving in to every politically correct European idea. One of the problems that faces Europe is that, since 1990, the popularity of the European Union inside the countries of that union has fallen systematically. That can be said of every member state. The reason is that Europe has not met the needs of the members of Europe, and first and foremost in terms of employment, where the rest of Europe could do well to follow our example.

Cyprus

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had relating to (a) Cyprus's entry into the European Union and (b) the occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops. [35172]

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had talks with President Clerides of Cyprus on 19 June. These and other subjects concerning Cyprus were discussed then.

Dr. Spink: I pay tribute to aspects of Britain's role in Cyprus over the past 30 years, but will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the Security Council resolution of 29 June, which rejected the status quo? Does he not believe that we should make more positive moves towards the total demilitarisation of Cyprus?

Mr. Rifkind: We fully support the call of the United Nations Secretary-General for both communities to work towards making political progress. As I am sure my hon. Friend will have noted, we recently appointed Sir David Hannay as the United Kingdom's special representative on Cyprus, to work with all those who are seeking to resume a dialogue in Cyprus and work towards political progress in an area that has seen markedly little progress over the past quarter of a century. It is a matter of great concern that Cyprus has failed entirely to make any progress in resolving its political difficulties. We believe that major new efforts are needed.

Mr. Faulds: Would it not be advisable if the majority of Members of the House of Commons made some effort to prove themselves somewhat less ignorant about the history of Cyprus over the past 50 years? Is it not the case—[Interruption.]—if I could have the Secretary of State's attention—that it was Archbishop Makarios who, in 1963, aborted the constitutional arrangements of 1960, which had given the Turkish Cypriots certain rights? Is it not also the case that it was 11 years later, in 1974, that the Turkish army intervened, as it was entitled to do under the treaty of guarantee of 1960, and that it is time we became a little more acquainted with the history of Cyprus and tried to bring about a more fair and justified resolution?

Mr. Rifkind: The House, as usual, benefits from the hon. Gentleman's historical knowledge.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I warmly welcome the appointment of Sir David Hannay to carry out that crucial task. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to condemn the rearmament that has gone on on both sides of Cyprus? He will well know that I deplore the Turkish occupation of the north and the equipment of the army in the north. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is dangerous on such a small island to have such massive rearmament continuing?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There are more than 30,000 Turkish troops on the island. There is also evidence of growing militarisation elsewhere in Cyprus with the growing use of heavy weaponry. Given the smallness of the island and of the population, there can be no conceivable military need for this form of military presence. It is another aspect of the failure of both communities to take the political initiative and to seek to reconcile their differences. There is no fundamental difference between Greek and Turkish Cypriots on the need for them to live and work together on the island in a bizonal, bicommunal, federal republic. Given that agreement on ultimate objectives, it should not be as difficult as it has been to make progress on the important building blocks to achieve such a result.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with (a) Poland, (b) Hungary and (c) the Czech Republic. [35173]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Relations between the United Kingdom and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic respectively remain excellent.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that, in this year when we shall commemorate the 50th anniversary of the speech at Fulton, Missouri, the people of central Europe—of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and of many other countries—are yearning to redeem the pledges that were made immediately after the end of the second world war? Can the Government not show more enthusiasm for the early admission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO and for a widening of the European Union rather than a deepening, to allow those countries access to great European institutions founded on democracy?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that Her Majesty's Government should take every opportunity to emphasise our enthusiasm for all three countries joining NATO and the European Union. I was in Hungary last week giving precisely that assurance, and I visited the Czech Republic and Poland to do the same. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that, as soon as all three countries fulfil the necessary criteria, they join us in both organisations.

Mr. David Howell: I welcome the tone of my hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that the countries of central Europe and other countries have traditionally looked to Britain as a friend and supporter in promoting their democratic interests, and that they now see a Europe that is more in the British mould of the open and diversified kind rather than the centralised and protective European model? They are looking to London particularly for a lead in that respect.
Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that he and his colleagues will give that lead and give those countries every encouragement to join an open and diversified Europe of nations and to join NATO as rapidly as possible while we have the opportunity and before darker threats from further east make it impossible to do so?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Certainly, Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can to hasten the process. We give much assistance through the British Council and the know-how fund to ensure that countries move forward as fast as possible in establishing the internal systems that will enable them to join the European Union and NATO.
The only word of caution that I would add is that we must get these things right and the structure of the European Union right rather than expanding it before problems in the European Union that inhibit that expansion have been dealt with. We must not expand and find ourselves in a position that we subsequently cannot correct.

Burma

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work his Department is doing in co—operation with other countries to protect human rights in Burma. [35174]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Burma. With our EU partners and other like-minded states, we have taken action, both bilaterally and in international forums, to press the State Law and Order Restoration Council to implement human rights reforms. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Soley: In view of the remarkable courage and commitment of Aung San and of the sad death in prison of Mr. Nichols, who was imprisoned for having a fax in his home, do we not have a duty to listen to democrats in Burma who have been asking for a ban on trade and investment? Bearing in mind the fact that this week we are feting Nelson Mandela and that we traded and invested in South Africa at a time when he was calling for us not to do so, is there not a lesson to be learned? Aung San, like Nelson Mandela, will win and we should back her.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is always difficult to know whether it helps a country to ban trade with it, which can have disastrous effects on its poorer people, or to try to trade with it and open it up to better ways of running its affairs. We have a close relationship with Aung San Suu Kyi and her party and we listen closely to the messages that they send us. It is Government policy to continue to trade with Burma, because we do not believe that it would help the liberalisation process if we were not to do so. The level of trade with Burma is extremely low. Our exports last year amounted to £15 million. A ban would not make a huge impact one way or the other.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since Aung San Suu Kyi's release from house arrest, far from democratic reconciliation having taken place between SLORC and opposition parties, the level of oppression has, if anything, increased significantly? Given that Aung San Suu Kyi herself has said that European countries, and the international community generally, ought to discourage trade and investment in Burma, is it not time that the British Government gave a lead?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). We keep these matters under review. We are watching the political situation closely, and paying particular attention to the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that his answer has gained no support from any hon. Member? Is it not now clear that the deterioration of the human rights regime in Burma is such that the United Kingdom should support the demand for trade sanctions? That is what the democrats in Burma want, and what the Danish Government want. Is it not time for Britain to join the campaign?
Is it not also clear that this Conservative Government have always got it wrong on sanctions? Was it not this Conservative Government alone who continued to oppose


sanctions against South Africa? Their hypocrisy and shame are now clear for us all to see. Is it not time that they learned the lessons from South Africa, and took action to support the democrats and the people of Burma?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The present situation in South Africa illustrates the success of the policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government over the years. It is nonsense to suggest that sanctions are the only way to bring recalcitrant Governments to heel. In my experience, on most of the occasions when we have tried that method it has failed. We should try to achieve a balance between not inflicting too much damage on the people of the country concerned and putting sufficient pressure on its Government to reform their ways. That is what we attempt to do, but—as the hon. Gentleman would admit if he were honest—it is an extremely difficult task.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that, in the past, trade sanctions imposed for the best possible reasons have invariably led to our export contracts' being taken over by, for instance, the Italians, the French and the Japanese?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I would not base our foreign policy on the fear that we may lose such contracts, it is nevertheless true that, when sanctions have been imposed—even by the international community—they have been broken by many countries that have undertaken to abide by them.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings attended by Ministers in his Department with their European Union counterparts to prepare for the intergovernmental conference. [35175]

Mr. David Davis: There are ministerial sessions of the IGC approximately once a month.

Mr. Griffiths: I dare say that, when the Minister next attends one of those meetings, he will want to trumpet loudly the success of LG's investment in Newport, in south Wales. He may also point out to his European counterparts that such major inward investors pay excellent wages, provide good working conditions and have absolutely no fear of the social chapter: indeed, they have suggested that they would welcome it. Does not LG's decision show that it has no qualms about the signing and implementing of the social chapter by a Labour Government?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman omits to mention that LG has contributed just one part of what has been record inward investment for a long time. The reason for that investment is hardly the reason given by the hon. Gentleman; it has been made because we have a liberal, well-run, free labour market, which is effective in generating wealth and which gives a proper return on investment. That is the view not only of people in Japan, Korea and other parts of the world but of those who run Siemens and Deutschebank and those responsible for the German equivalent of the CBI. They say exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman

has said. Indeed, the leader of his party had to sit and listen to Mr. Henkel speaking about precisely that issue. As he pointed out, the British model under a Conservative Government for the past decade and a half and more is what has generated wealth, jobs and inward investment in this country, and Germany should follow suit.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Have the subject and the problems of Cyprus appeared on the agenda of any of the meetings to which my hon. Friend referred and, if so, has he advised our European Union colleagues that Turkish troops have a right to be in Cyprus, as Turkey is a guarantor power and went there to protect the Cypriot Turkish community? Have the Government told colleagues in the European Union that it is vital to treat Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots equally on all occasions, because, without the agreement of both communities, any progress is unlikely?

Mr. Davis: On the explicit matters that my hon. Friend raises, the question of Cyprus has not come up in detail. Obviously, it has come up as a matter of principle in relation to the enlargement of the Community.
On my hon. Friend's second comment, I can reiterate only the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that this country supports a bizonal, bicommunal, federal and therefore fair settlement for Cyprus.

Indonesia

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Indonesian Government to discuss human rights in that country; and if he will make a statement. [35176]

Mr. Rifkind: Ministers most recently discussed human rights with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr. Alatas, during his visit to the UK in January.

Mrs. Prentice: Is the Foreign Secretary concerned about reports of injuries to more than 100 protesters at demonstrations on 20 June this year? If so, does he not think that it is time for him to urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that their security forces stop using excessive force and that the rights of protesters are protected, given that this is not the first time we have heard of such uses of excessive force by the Indonesian security forces?

Mr. Rifkind: We welcome any improvement in respect for human rights and we were especially pleased to hear about the establishment in Indonesia of a national human rights commission. We hope that that will make a useful contribution towards ensuring proper respect for human rights, which the hon. Lady wants.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fact that the Indonesians have set up that human rights commission shows that they believe and understand that their human rights record must improve? Does he further agree that, when we make judgments about countries on the far side of the world, sometimes we should bear in mind the judgments that they might


make about us from afar, and the fact that it does not encourage the growth of human rights in Indonesia to denigrate what has been achieved so far?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. No country is immune from observation and comment by other countries around the world. Just as we expect to comment on human rights matters elsewhere, so our own practices will occasionally come under scrutiny, but those practices are overwhelmingly matters of which we can be proud.

BBC World Service

Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met senior management of the BBC World Service to discuss future funding arrangements. [35177]

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the change in real terms in the operating budget of the BBC World Service between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [35180]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last met senior management on 6 February this year.
The operating budget is reduced by 5.4 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 1997–98. The World Service should make most of this up through already identified efficiency savings.

Mr. Hall: Is the Minister aware that, during the last general election, the Prime Minister promised to promote the English language by strengthening the BBC World Service? Given the fact that, in the next financial year, it will face a shortfall in its operational budget of £8 million because of Government cuts, will the Minister give a categoric assurance that the BBC will not have to cut one language service because of those cuts? As he contemplates that answer, what does he say to the BBC World Service, which has said straightforwardly that, unless cuts are reversed, it will have no option but to cut services?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not accept that no option is open to the World Service but to cut services. Of course, some language services are dropped as others are added. I said earlier that we have added both Uzbek and Macedonian. We have limited French to France, because there was a fall in demand for that service, but that does not affect the francophone broadcast to Africa.
In the past five years, our assistance to the World Service has been excellent. The 1997–98 shortfall should be met by efficiency savings. Those have been identified as amounting to about £13 million by the efficiency saving unit and the BBC. The World Service should also be able to make up any shortfall through the private finance initiative. Through that, we hope that it will be able to secure funding for the Omani relay station, for example, at a cost of £30 million, which would at least make up any deficit.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that that is the greatest load of rubbish that I have heard from the Foreign Office for many years? Not only is the service suffering a shortfall at the moment but appointments are being made, changes are being rushed through and the Government are doing little to try to protect the interests of the World Service. It is a unique, remarkable and excellent service which is revered throughout the world. It does the Government no credit not to be prepared to protect it.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The World Service is so highly regarded because it has been consistently expanded throughout the Government's tenure of office. As I said earlier, we have spent over 50 per cent. in real terms more on that service than Labour ever did when it was in power. We have supported it and shall continue to support it, and I have no doubt that it will continue to give an excellent service worldwide.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us who know about the BBC's substantial plans for expanding the World Service recognise that the effects of further funding by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, however generous, can have only a marginal effect on those plans?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Of course we shall continue to give what support we can, but the BBC must look for efficiency and run the World Service in the best way possible.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the expansion that has been described by my hon. Friend. What are the Government's plans to make available further funds for the expansion of the World Service in the coming year?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As I said to the House, unfortunately we have had to make a small cut in World Service funding for next year, but that should be more than made up by the efficiency cuts that have been identified and by private finance initiative money, which we hope it will be able to find.

Points of Order

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you greater notice of the matter that I wish to raise, but the circumstances were unusual. On the radio this morning, the Secretary of State for Transport announced and spoke about a cycling conference, and was delivering an allegedly new Government policy. Because of that, I inquired of the private office whether there would be a statement today. I was informed that there would be, but during the morning the private office telephoned my office and courteously sent an 11-page version of the Secretary of State's speech, because apparently there is to be no statement.
As you know, Madam Speaker, there is in the House an all-party cycling group, of which I am an officer, and, to the best of my knowledge, it was not informed about the conference or the policy. As you will also know, I have extensive cycling experience, because I cover thousands of miles in London each year in that manner. Mr. Speaker Weatherill often drew the attention of Ministers to the desirability of making any policy known to the House first rather than through extensive media coverage, as has happened on this occasion. I hope that you will follow the precedents and the good advice of your predecessor.

Madam Speaker: I have long attempted to follow the policy that was adopted by my predecessor, by making it known to the Government that policy statements should be made in the House first. Like hon. Members, I often listen to statements on the radio in the morning in the hope that a further statement in greater detail will be made in the House in the afternoon. Often that does not occur. I deprecate statements or information on policy changes that are made either on the radio or at press conferences. The House should be the first to know when changes of Government policy occur.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At Question Time, you will have

heard the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) make an extremely serious allegation against Professor al-Masari, the Saudi dissident who has been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom on political asylum grounds—that he had used the World Service to incite racial hatred. If that is the case, will you confirm that the correct course of action for any hon. Member or for anybody else would be to refer the matter to the police and the Attorney-General?
Secondly, Madam Speaker, may I ask for your advice on whether the changes to the proceedings of the House and to the privileges of Members of Parliament since the passage of the Defamation Bill in any way alter the rights that hon. Members have exploited in the past to make that type of serious allegation, against which citizens have no redress?

Madam Speaker: That is an interesting matter, but it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair. Hon. Members have a great deal of privilege in the House, but I have always said that that privilege must always be tempered with responsibility, and that we should not make wild statements. If the hon. Gentleman believes that an hon. Member made wild statements that may be referred to the Attorney-General, he might take it up with the hon. Member himself.

BILL PRESENTED

ENERGY CONSERVATION (FIFTEEN-YEAR PROGRAMME)

Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. John Austin-Walker, Mr. Llew Smith, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Ken Livingstone and Mrs. Helen Jackson, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up and carry out a fifteen-year programme of energy conservation measures and related activities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

School Transport (Parental Choice)

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase parental choice in respect of transport to school provided by local authorities.
Perhaps the most popular reform of those made by the Government since 1979 has been the change in the law that made it possible for parents who educate their children in the maintained sector to choose to which school they will send their children. That policy has proved popular with parents of all political persuasions, and even with those of none. The difficulty is that, in the rural areas of Devon, the freedom to use that policy is the same as the policy to dine at the Ritz: it is available provided one can afford to pay for it.
The background is contained in section 5(1) of the Education Act 1944, which provides that, where a child is under the age of eight, transport costs to any school more than two miles away must be paid for, and that, for a child over the age of eight, costs for transport over three miles must be paid for.
Many people might think that the county would perhaps contribute the amount that it would have had to pay had one not chosen the school that one's child attends. No one would expect that, perhaps in a time of difficult financial circumstances, any extra costs that might be incurred would be paid. However, most people would think that the county would be prepared to pay what it would have had to pay regardless.
In Devon, the policy of the local education authority is to pay nothing at all in such cases. I must stress particularly that my Bill's purpose is not to incur extra expense for LEAs, because, under it, they would incur no extra expense. They would merely be required to contribute what they would have had to pay in the first place.
It should not have been necessary for me to come to the House to request the opportunity to introduce legislation to make such provision, because it is sheer common sense. Therefore, I must explain why my Bill is necessary, and why it is that the LEA in Devon takes the line it does. The Liberal-controlled LEA in Devon has two reasons for its position. First, it says that it would involve the LEA in extra costs, and, secondly, it says that the policy was the same under the Tories.
I shall deal with the second point first. The previous Conservative administration indeed had a policy of not making a contribution towards costs in these circumstances. I criticised it publicly then for that, and I criticise it publicly now. However, I must say that that administration never went to the quite extraordinary lengths to which the current Liberal administration goes to try to ensure that parents are not able to exercise their rights.
On the first point, the idea that extra costs might be involved in acceding to my request is simply wrong. Remarkably, when I introduced an Adjournment debate on this subject some weeks ago, a Liberal spokesman appeared on local radio to say that I was proposing that, whenever a child who lived in Exmouth wanted to go to a school in Plymouth, for example, the transport costs should be picked up. That was absolutely absurd. I have never suggested that, and I am not suggesting it now. All I am suggesting is that there should be a contribution of the same amount.

If there is to be a suggestion by the Liberal LEA that it does not have enough money, I should point out that there are a great many other shires that would have liked to receive an extra £17.5 million in the most recent financial settlement. So the question of costs in no sense comes into it.
I could have given many examples from the scores of parents who have written to me to explain the falsity of the position adopted by the Liberal-controlled LEA, but I will give just two. First, there is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Foskett, who live in Lustleigh. The village is equidistant between Moretonhampstead and Bovey Tracey. In the normal course of events, Michael Foskett would have gone to school in Bovey Tracey, but there was not enough room for him at the time, so he went to Moretonhampstead. In due course, his younger brother, Richard, reached school age and his parents, not unreasonably, expected him to go to the same school as their elder son. Not a bit of it. For the county, to exercise that choice would have amounted to parental choice. Therefore, there could be no question of the county paying the school transport costs.
Faced with such a situation, it is no wonder that a teacher wrote to me recently saying:
The Government's laudable policy of free parental choice of schools cannot operate at present as parents who exercise their right then find themselves faced with a transport bill which can run to several hundred pounds per year or serious personal inconvenience.
It is hardly surprising that Mrs. Foskett wrote to me saying:
There are obviously wider issues here also. Government policy of expanding parental choice in education would appear, in rural Devon at least, to contain the proviso of having the financial wherewithal to reach the school of your choice. The result for many in Devon is, therefore, no choice. I am aware that finances are tight, but this is an issue that can be resolved, in our case at least, at no extra cost to the council.
That is the point.
Incredibly, there is a case that is even worse than that. It is the case of Mr. and Mrs. Walters, who live in Denbury. They wanted to send their son, Mark, to Knowles Hill school in Newton Abbot. The local authority wanted to send the child to Coombeshead school in Newton Abbot. They are both excellent schools, but the parents chose Knowles Hill.
The LEA said that Knowles Hill school was too far away. The headmaster of Knowles Hill had the distance measured, and found that it was shorter. Most LEAs would have accepted the word of the headmaster. Not a bit of it. The LEA went to immense time and trouble to devise a route from the school that it wanted the child to go to, which would be shorter. After a great deal of expenditure of officer time, it managed to do that. It managed to prove that the designated school was 352 yd nearer. On that basis, it would not contribute anything towards school transport costs.
The important point is not just that the two schools are in the same town, share a campus and are on opposite sides of the same road, or even that the bus that would have taken Mark to the school was the same bus—but it was the very same bus stop.
Nobody can criticise Parliament or the Government for not being able to tell in advance every quirk and twist of malice that a particular LEA would use to try to defeat the object of the House. However, when it becomes clear what some Liberal-controlled LEAs will do, the House has a responsibility to take remedial action.
My Bill would involve no extra cost for the LEA. It would simply involve a contribution of the sum that it would have had to pay in law in any event. If the Bill were to become law, it would mean that, in Devon at least, free education would once again become free in the sense that it was meant to be, and not simply as it is in Liberal-controlled Devon—as free as dining at the Ritz hotel. That is why I wish to present my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Sir Peter Emery, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Rupert Allason.

SCHOOL TRANSPORT (PARENTAL CHOICE)

Mr. Patrick Nicholls accordingly presented a Bill to increase parental choice in respect of transport to school provided by local authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Orders of the Day — Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,

That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Clause 1, amendments relating to Schedule 1, amendments relating to Clauses 2 to 19, amendments relating to Schedule 2, amendments relating to Clause 20, amendments relating to Schedule 3, amendments relating to Clauses 21 and 22, New Schedules relating to Part I, New Clauses relating to Part Ill, amendments relating to Clauses 28 to 31, amendments relating to Schedule 4, New Schedules relating to Part III, New Clauses relating to Part IV, amendments relating to Clauses 33 to 37, amendments relating to Schedules 5 and 6, New Schedules relating to Part IV, New Clauses relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clauses 23 to 27, New Schedules relating to Part II, amendments relating to Clause 32, amendments relating to the Title.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Clause 4

QUALITY ASSURANCE

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 15, after 'persons' insert
'(and, in particular, such persons with special educational needs)'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 12.

Mr. Robertson: In Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke several times of those in Scotland with special educational needs. As I said at the time, the hon. Lady spoke with eloquence, knowledge and tremendous sincerity.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would expect the Scottish Qualifications Authority to cater for those with special educational needs. Currently, both the Scottish Examination Board and Scottish Vocational Education Council have a strong track record in that respect. I have no doubt that the SQA will maintain that record.
We understand, however, that there are concerns that assessment procedures—many not directly operated by the SQA—might develop in such a way as to marginalise the interests of special educational needs students. I can assure the House that that is not our intention, and we shall work with the SQA on the issue. After further consideration, however, we feel that a reference to special educational needs students in relation to the quality assurance part of the SQA's powers would be appropriate.
The amendment therefore makes specific reference to SEN students in clause 4(a). The power deals with the procedures adopted by establishments for assessing attainment, rather than the audit of the effectiveness of the procedures dealt with in 4(b). On balance, we consider it preferable. It will give the SQA's consideration of SEN a more direct influence in internal assessment procedures. Clause 4(b) refers back to the checking procedures used


by presenting centres. Thus, amendment No. 11 will also import SEN considerations. That was the substance of the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady in Committee.
We remain committed to the principle that those with special educational needs should have the opportunity to gain fair access to qualifications. The amendment underlines that commitment, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I begin by thanking the Minister for his useful remarks and for having an open mind, and responding to the issue raised in Committee by myself and others. I am sure that many students with special educational needs will be delighted that he has responded so positively. I have just one question. As the amendment refers to the assessment of the standards of attainment, will it cover the teaching of persons with special educational needs? Having listened to his brief remarks at the Dispatch Box, I take it that he meant that to be covered. I am glad to welcome that assurance and the amendment.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I thank the Government for introducing the amendment, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who pressed the issue on several occasions in Committee. The Opposition welcome the amendment, as it is a commonsense change that beds in the SQA in a much more credible manner, and because many of us were concerned about the impact on those with special educational needs.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 10, line 29, at end insert—

' "special educational needs" has the meaning given by section 1(5)(d) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980;'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Clause 33

PLACING REQUESTS

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 19, line 11, after 'kilometers' insert '(2 miles)'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Mr. Robertson: As hon. Members on the Standing Committee will recall, following a full and surprisingly wide-ranging debate in Committee, I undertook on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself to introduce an amendment to add a reference to miles to the reference to kilometres in the Bill. That was in response to an amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker).

Amendment No. 13, in the name of my right hon. Friend, fulfils the commitment that we made in Committee. I hope that it will reassure those hon. Members who were concerned to ensure that the statute was as accessible as possible to the people of Scotland.

Mrs. Liddell: I do not want to intrude on the personal grief of Government Members. I can say only that we had an intriguing debate on this matter in Committee. I am very grateful that the sums we have been talking about have been rounded up in pounds. I shudder to think what would have happened if we had had to debate nursery vouchers in terms of what my daughter calls "old money". We do not oppose the amendment, but it is a measure of some Government Members' Euro-scepticism that they are even prepared to go so far as to quibble about the use of kilometres rather than miles.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I spoke on this issue in Committee. It has nothing to do with Euro-scepticism. It is all about good relationships with the public and recognition of their understanding of issues.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 19, line 12, after 'kilometers' insert '(3 miles)'.

No. 15, in page 19, line 13, at end insert—

': and in paragraphs (a) and (b) the references to imperial measurements are supplementary indications of distance.'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Schedule 5

MISCELLANEOUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 30, line 14, at end insert—
'. After section 51(2B) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (provision of transport and other facilities) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2C) In considering whether to make any arrangements under subsection (1) above in respect of pupils attending schools, an education authority shall have regard to the safety of such pupils.".'.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide in section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 the express duty for education authorities to have regard to safety issues in determining whether an individual pupil should be entitled to school transport. Section 51 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 imposes a duty on education authorities to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the provision of free school transport or other transport facilities as may be arranged, or for paying all or part of reasonable travel expenses for school pupils belonging to their areas and attending designated schools. Authorities also have a power—but not a duty—to make such arrangements in relation to pupils belonging to their areas who attend a school other than their designated school as a result of a successful placing request.
Generally, education authorities make school transport arrangements for pupils who live outwith the statutory walking distance for school attendance purposes of the metric equivalents of two miles for any pupil under eight years of age, and three miles for any other pupil. However, education authorities need not restrict school transport provision to those criteria, and arrangements—including where pupils are to be picked up, whether school bus supervisors are provided and other matters—are for each authority to determine in the light of local circumstances. That gives them wide discretion in deciding what transport or transport facilities should be provided to take account of individual pupils' circumstances. On safety issues, authorities generally seek the views of the police.
Parents have in recent weeks expressed some concern that, in making decisions that have sometimes reduced existing entitlement to school transport by withdrawing provision for those living within statutory walking distances from their schools, some authorities may have failed adequately to take account of safety issues, bearing in mind the ages of the children concerned and the nature of the route or alternative routes that, in the absence of school transport, would have to be walked. Parents have made the reasonable point that walking along a busy and unlit road, with or without proper pavements, can be dangerous for a child, even if the distance from home to school is less than statutory walking distances for school attendance purposes.
I recognise that section 51 provides that authorities should make such arrangements as they consider necessary, and that generally they do so in line with the statutory walking distances. Although good authorities already consult the police on safety issues related to individual applications for school transport, recent public concern suggests that there is room for improvement.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister is clearly proposing through the amendment to place a further statutory duty on local authorities. Will there be any consequential increase in the funding available to local authorities? This House has a habit of placing duties on authorities and not giving them the resources to implement them.

Mr. Robertson: I will develop that point. We are asking all authorities to adopt the good practice of most authorities.
We consider that it would be helpful to introduce an express duty requiring authorities to have regard to safety issues when making decisions on the entitlement of individual children to school transport. It should, of course, remain for education authorities to exercise their discretion in determining whether school transport arrangements are necessary in individual instances to meet the differing circumstances of individual applicants. In doing so, however, it is vital that authorities should at all times have due regard to the safety implications of not providing school transport for a particular child for whatever reason.
That is what our amendment seeks to achieve, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Liddell: We shall not oppose the amendment, because it puts into statute the good practice currently undertaken by Scottish local authorities.
I share the concern of some local authorities, however, about the shortage of time for consultation on the matter. It is a commonsense issue, and those concerned about accident prevention are aware that one of the most vulnerable groups is pedestrian schoolchildren, particularly in Scotland, where we have long periods of darkness. It must be recognised that many local authorities already consult the police or road safety organisations.
Rather than an amendment that reminds them of the importance of safety, local authorities need ring-fencing of funding to permit them to fulfil their known obligations. A number of local authorities have found

themselves in a difficult position as a result of the local government settlement they are enduring this year, which is why difficulties have arisen in some local authorities.
I urge the Government to take other issues into account, such as the definition of safety and parents' responsibilities in respect of accompanying pupils to and from school. How would the Government seek to define those?
The Opposition have no intention of opposing the amendment.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister say a little about safety on buses? As he knows, the son of a constituent of mine from Drongan was killed on his way to Auchinleck academy. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) had the same tragic circumstances in his constituency. Those accidents caused an outcry, and the campaign "Belt up school kids" was introduced.
Will the Minister give an update of the position regarding seat belts in school transport and attendants, particularly on double-decker buses? People are still greatly concerned about safety on buses. When transport is provided, as the amendment helpfully seeks to do, we want to ensure that it is safe for the youngsters who use it. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether progress is being made along those lines.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is aware of recent Department of Transport regulations requiring the fitting of seat belts on school transport vehicles, and I am sure that he welcomes them. The education authorities already have a common law duty of care in respect of children under their supervision, as is the case when pupils travel to and from school under arrangements made by the authorities. I hope that the recent Department of Transport regulations will provide comfort to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about this issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 30, line 24, at end insert—
'. After section 13(3) of the Self—Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 (eligibility for self—governing status) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(3A) Without prejudice to subsection (3) above, where an education authority makes a proposal to discontinue a school by virtue of section 22A of the 1980 Act, no resolution shall be passed or request made under subsection (1) above during the relevant period.
(3B) The relevant period is whichever is the shorter of the period from the date when the education authority decides to consult persons in accordance with section 22A of the 1980 Act to the date the decision to discontinue the school is reached or—

(a) where no consent is required under section 22B, 22C or 22D of the 1980 Act as regards the decision to discontinue the school, three months later;
(b) where consent of the Secretary of State is so required, six months later.".'


The purpose of this amendment is to limit the use of procedures under the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 for schools to seek self-governing


status by school boards or parents simply for the purpose of blocking school closures proposed by an education authority.
There are currently two self-governing schools in Scotland—Dornoch academy and St Mary's Episcopal primary school in Dunblane. Both are performing extremely well and experiencing considerable benefits from the immediacy of decision making and greater financial efficiency that self-government brings.
Self-government remains central to our policy of extending parents' choice in how their children are educated. We remain committed to encouraging more school boards to seek self-governing status, and are confident that, in time, many more boards will see for themselves the benefits of following the lead shown by Dornoch academy and St Mary's Episcopal primary school.
We shall shortly establish a self-governing schools support unit to provide information and advice to schools that wish to know more about self-government. In addition, my forthcoming White Paper on education will contain further proposals on that matter.
However, we have said many times that school boards should not regard the self-governing procedures simply as a means of blocking education authorities' proposals to rationalise school capacity. The recent Accounts Commission report on managing surplus places in school buildings estimated that 13 secondary and more than 100 primary schools could be closed, as there is sufficient alternative provision locally. The savings to be achieved from such rationalisation are significant, and can benefit all the pupils.
Education authorities have difficult decisions to take to tackle the significant surplus of school capacity in Scotland, and they should be free to consult fully on their plans. Well-structured plans will be to the benefit of all pupils in an area by ensuring that the best use is made of resources. The amendment is designed to help education authorities.
As matters stand, a school board can start self-governing procedures by passing a first resolution or by receiving a petition from parents, calling for a ballot of parents on whether self-governing status should be sought.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Why have only a couple of schools opted out in Scotland in the past few years?

4 pm

Mr. Robertson: I should be happy to debate our self-governing policy with the hon. Gentleman at any time, but this is not the time to do so, because the debate is not on the merits of self-governing but on allowing education authorities to get on with taking difficult and sensitive decisions.
It is not open to a school board at the moment to take such action in circumstances where the education authority has already taken a final decision to close a school after appropriate consultation with parents of pupils, the school board and, for a denominational school, the relevant denominational body.
In recent weeks, a total of eight school boards have either passed a first resolution or received a petition calling for a ballot of parents. In each case, the education

authorities had published proposals consulting on the closure or merger of their schools. Before such proposals emerged, none of those boards had expressed any interest in self-governing status.
I assure the House that, in due course, should those ballots of parents lead to self-governing proposals being published and submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for approval, the proposals would be fully considered on their merits in the usual way.
It is clearly possible for a school board, minded to obstruct the progress of an education authority's consultation on school rationalisation, to use the self-governing legislation in a manner that the House obviously did not intend. The amendment provides that, once an education authority has formally resolved to publish proposals for the closure of a specific school, the school board could not validly start self-governing procedures, either through a first resolution or by receiving a petition from parents, until three months after that resolution by the authority, or until such time as the authority had taken a final decision on the closure of the school, whichever was the sooner.
A longer period of six months could apply in respect of closure decisions that also require the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—those in respect of schools more than 80 per cent. full, primary schools more than five miles from the nearest other primary school, secondary schools more than 10 miles from the nearest other secondary school, and denominational schools in certain circumstances.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I realise that the Minister did not serve on the Standing Committee the considered the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989, so I have brought along the documentation. Colleagues from other parties will remember the very long mornings, afternoons and, indeed, nights that we spent in that Committee.
It is difficult to reconcile what the Minister said today with the attitude that was struck by the then Minister of State, Scottish Office, with responsibility for education—now Secretary of State for Scotland—in that Committee when we discussed the clauses relating to self-government.
The Government are now proposing a very centralising operation, removing the freedom of parents and that of local authorities to undertake a consultative programme to enable them to take decisions. We all accept that those are very difficult, emotive decisions for local authorities to take.
During the passage of that Bill, many statements were made, when the Government said clearly that in no circumstances would the provisions of the 1989 Act ever become a centralising force.
For the benefit of the Minister, I shall quote three statements that the then Minister of State made in Committee. First, he said:
it is absurd for Opposition Members to argue that this is a centralising measure.
He said later in the debate:
self-governing schools will offer an alternative to schools under local authority management.


He then said:
Under no circumstances will there be a centralising authority by the Government."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 16 March 1989; c. 50, 65.]
This is a strange situation. We have to reconcile different political positions—the Government said that they were opposed to a centralising philosophy, but they are now centralising.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We believe in giving local authorities more freedom and more sensitivity in relation to school rationalisation, but we do not believe that that is a centralising measure.

Mrs. Ewing: In that Committee, the Minister said that there would be no potential for the Government to inflict centralising policies, yet today we have before us a centralising philosophy that is preventing local authorities, parents and teachers from entering a true dialogue about how they can best provide education. The Government are standing in the way of local democracy, contrary to what was said during that Committee. It is despicable. The Government's argument is totally illogical. We believe that local education is best provided at the local level and not by diktat from central Government.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Government are blocking parental choice by their actions. The Minister said that there are greater efficiencies and advantages in opted-out schools—that view is not shared by the majority of Scotland's teachers and parents. He said that he was confident that, in time, other schools would follow the two schools that have opted out—which is an arrogant disregard of parental views. The fact that the Minister said that there are greater advantages and efficiencies in opted-out schools is an insult to Scotland's teaching profession and to the national system.
I note that the Minister ducked a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), on self-governing schools. That policy is at the heart of the amendment. The Government's policy prevents parents in schools that are earmarked for closure from using the opting-out legislation to delay closure—they are prevented from saying how they feel about opting out.
I am opposed to the Government's opting-out proposals. I believe that parents would not choose to opt out if they had the choice. Parents do not wish to opt out—they are merely using the procedure as a last-gasp attempt to save their schools because no other mechanism is open to them. The Government are starving the system of resources and they are forcing these decisions on parents.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he supports that last desperate strategy by parents to keep their schools open?

Mr. Welsh: My objection is that this is the last-gasp strategy open to parents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan recommended, I would prefer to see a dialogue between the education authority and the parents, to ensure that, wherever possible, a school remains open.
I am speaking from practical experience—I have helped to save schools locally. When Tayside was run by the Conservatives, I fought tooth and nail to save a rural school that is now, thankfully, thriving. I give due credit to the previous Labour Government and to the late Frank McElhone, who was the then Minister for Education. He listened to my arguments and to the arguments of the parents. The school was saved and it is now thriving. The Government are forcing people into that situation.
I place on record my opposition to the opting-out proposals. They are destructive of our national school system; they are unwanted by parents and by educationists; they are an anglicisation; and they are a deliberate attack on the national system—a system that has the support and confidence of all Scotland's parents.
Instead of attacking Scotland's schools, the Minister should have told us how the Government are building on the system's strengths and resourcing the national system properly. The amendment would not be necessary if the system were resourced properly. It is an admission of failure on the part of the Government, as parents choose to opt out only as a last resort in order to fight school closures. Rather than addressing the real problem of under-resourcing in the school system, the Government are responding to the symptoms and blocking an avenue that parents have chosen out of desperation in fighting for local schools.
Given the choice, it is obvious that parents would prefer to opt into the national system. However, the Government's total failure to provide adequate resources overall has forced parents and education authorities into this situation. Rather than closing the loophole through this amendment, the Government should provide much-needed funds to local authorities to enable them to run schools properly.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: How would the hon. Gentleman reply to the Accounts Commission, which says that there are 300,000 surplus school places in Scotland?

Mr. Welsh: The Government should examine that problem in consultation with parents and schools. Some school closures cannot be avoided—I am not saying that they should be avoided. However, schools should be closed for educational reasons rather than as a result of deliberate under-resourcing. The Government's policies have forced parents to take desperate measures. I believe that the amendment is a direct result of deliberate Government policy. Ministers should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. John McAllion: I did not intend to participate in the debate, but I am a little confused by the contributions from hon. Members from the Scottish National party.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman is easily confused.

Mr. McAllion: That is true most of the time, but I am more confused than usual by the hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate. I have some direct experience, as local government spending cuts have forced the closure of several secondary schools in Dundee. Rockwell school used the procedure to prevent its closure and to halt the consultation process with the local authority.
In reality, by choosing to ballot to opt out, the school delays any closure decision in that year—the decision must be put off until the next year. However, the cuts cannot be delayed until next year. Savings are lost to the local authority when the school board and the parents begin the procedure. As a result, it must make other cuts elsewhere in the education budget. Teachers in Dundee now face redundancy because parents have used that procedure to prevent school closures.
I do not understand whether the SNP supports school boards that adopt that procedure. Does it want to see teachers across Scotland sacked because the device remains available to school boards that wish to avoid closure? The hon. Gentleman said that some school closures are unavoidable; I agree with him. Some schools must close—they cannot go on for ever—but the parents at those schools will never agree to it. So long as the device exists, parents will continue to use it to prevent rational discussion about education provision in any city. That is the reality.

Mr. Welsh: I did not say the words that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put in my mouth. He describes the symptoms of the Government's deliberate policy, and that is what I attacked.

Mr. McAllion: I said that school boards choose to opt out because of the spending cuts that the Government force upon them. So long as the device exists, we cannot have a rational debate about how to deal with the problem at local authority level.
The Government operate a centralising policy, in that they control local government spending—they give 85 per cent. of grants and they cap local authority spending. They control the actions of local authorities throughout Scotland. However, the amendment is not a centralising procedure. It aims to give local authorities the freedom to begin consulting about how they will react to the policies of this centralising Government.
I want to know whether the SNP will vote against local authorities having that freedom. Will local authorities be faced with a situation where they cannot do anything, where their hands are tied and where all schools face serious problems because some schools choose to use this ridiculous device? It should not have been on the statute book, and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I argued coherently against it in Committee. We warned Ministers what would happen. We warned that local authorities would not be able to close schools because the schools would use the measure to stop the closure. Ministers refused to listen, and now they have had to table an amendment that we told them should have been in the Bill in the first place. We should unite to attack the idiocy of opting out, instead of getting confused and trying to tie the hands of local authorities.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman himself started the argument between the Opposition parties, but does he agree that we have a useful opportunity, which the Minister wanted to avoid, to discuss the total failure of the opting-out policy and its impact, not just on individual schools, but on Scottish education? The hon. Gentleman agreed that some schools should close on educational

grounds, but does he accept that some schools in Scotland are being closed not on educational grounds, but because of cost pressures on local authorities?

Mr. McAllion: Not only do I agree with that, but I gave an example earlier of a school in my constituency that is closing because of cost pressures. There is no educational reason to close the school, but the local authority has to find savings. I should like to unite with the hon. Gentleman to attack the Tories and the way in which they have damaged local authority education in the years in which they have held sway over Scotland.
We debate the issues in a half-empty Chamber; we know that whatever we think as Scottish Members of Parliament will not matter in the end, because Tory Members will troop in from the bars and the restaurants to vote without even knowing for what they are voting. The only time that Conservative Members pay any attention to the Order Paper is when it mentions Members' pay or their individual constituencies. When they come to vote on Scottish issues, they ask where to go and which Lobby to enter. They do not care what the vote is about: they vote against Scotland anyway. That attitude pervades Conservative Members' thinking, and the Opposition should unite to oppose it.
The Minister gave the game away. He said that eight schools have applied to ballot on opting out since the local government financial settlement. He conceded that those schools do not want to opt out of local education authority control, but they want to avoid closure. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who used to be a Minister, but who has returned to the Back Benches, said some time ago in Committee that opting out would be the most popular decentralising measure ever and that schools across Scotland would use the procedure. He said that the Opposition would be proved wrong, but six or seven years later, only two schools in Scotland have opted out. They will not stay opted out for long, because we shall have a Labour Government and those schools will come back to the education authority sector, where they belong.

Mrs. Liddell: I am beginning to conclude that we are in the run-up to the Olympics, because we have seen so many somersaults this afternoon. I had thought that the only somersault that we would witness would be from the Minister, but the peculiar contributions from the Scottish National party have set my head birling. Anyone who sought to use the self-governing legislation, which the Government wrongly introduced, to try to save schools, would deliver yet another blow to the structure of Scottish education and assist the Conservatives.
The Minister's contribution this afternoon should not be overlooked following the strange interventions from the Scottish National party. The Minister has done not just a double somersault, but a back flip. It is as well that the Minister responsible for education, housing and fisheries is also responsible for sport, because sport seems to be much on his mind this afternoon. Government amendment No. 17 proves that the self-governing schools legislation is a dog's breakfast. The Government have acknowledged this afternoon that that dog's breakfast has to be sorted out. I welcome the amendment, because it will give some cohesion to a situation that the Government have made incoherent.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady may have heard the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) say that a


Labour Government—an unlikely prospect—would take opted-out schools in Scotland back under local authority control, which would cut across the pledges made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Can the hon. Lady confirm that that would be done?

Mrs. Liddell: I am delighted to confirm that that would be the case. I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition are proud to maintain the distinctive nature of Scottish education, which has, at its core, the comprehensive state system that 97 per cent. of Scottish school pupils use. The interventions by the Scottish National party this afternoon have shown that its commitment to the state comprehensive sector is not as firm as ours.
The Minister referred earlier to the establishment of a support unit in the Scottish Office; that is yet another example of the dismal failure of the legislation. The Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989 has been a complete and utter failure. Only two micro schools have decided to opt out.

Mr. Salmond: If in her future parliamentary career the hon. Lady is promoted and is moved to a ministerial position that requires her to speak on education in England on behalf of the Labour party, will she continue to believe in a comprehensive system? Will she still be against schools opting out? Will she continue to hold her present views on selection? Or does she vary her views with different geographical responsibilities?

Mrs. Liddell: I am delighted to confirm that I am committed to Scottish education. I am proud to speak in the House on behalf of Scottish education and proud to be committed to a separate devolved structure of Scottish education that will ensure that Scottish education remains distinct. That should be clear enough for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Salmond: But what are the hon. Lady's views?

Mrs. Liddell: My views are perfectly clear. I believe in Scottish state comprehensive education, and on that basis, I am joined by 97 per cent. of Scotland's parents. The Scottish National party has shown its true colours this afternoon.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: What of mixed ability? Perhaps the hon. Lady will put her views on the record. After all, she has put everything else on the record. What of mixed-ability teaching?

Mrs. Liddell: I am sure that the Minister will have found time to read Labour's paper on the Scottish manifesto. We have made it clear that we would approach issues in a coherent and sensible manner. We believe in mixed-ability teaching. We believe also in setting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Mixed-ability teaching has little to do with the amendment.

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government have introduced a sensible amendment. They have listened for once to the views of Scotland's parents. Indeed, they have listened to the views of Scottish local authorities. They seek through the amendment to end opt-outs that relate to school closures, but that is not enough. They must now turn their attention to parents' organisations and other bodies that will seek to use opt-out ballots and pre-emptive strikes when closure is likely to be on the agenda. Some closures are driven by local authority cuts, but closures also take place for sound educational reasons. Schools can fall below a certain roll, which makes them educationally unsound. We must protect the structure of Scottish education.
It is rare for me to be able to accept a Government amendment, but on this occasion, I am glad to recognise that at long last they have seen sense.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

GRANTS FOR EDUCATION OF CHILDREN UNDER SCHOOL AGE

Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 11, leave out from beginning of line 21 to end of line 31 on page 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—
'(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98.'.

No. 8, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—
'(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98; and in making such evaluation he shall consult those organisations which appear to him to be representative of local authorities, teachers and parents.'.

No. 10, in clause 24, page 11, line 39, at end insert—

'and
(c) shall have regard to quality assurance, including complaints procedures, and other such matters as appear to him to be relevant,'.

No. 7, in page 11, line 39, at end insert—
'(2A) Requirements under subsection (1) above shall include—

(a) appropriate criteria for the quality assurance of the service provided;
(b) the levels of training and qualifications of staff employed by that person; and
(c) minimum standards for the premises at which the service is to be provided.'.

No. 1, in title, line 5, leave out
'to make provision enabling payment of grant to providers of education for children under school age;'.

Mrs. Liddell: Nursery vouchers lead us to the substantive part of the Bill. We had lengthy discussions in Committee on the structure of the vouchers. The purpose behind the amendments is to demonstrate that the Government's proposals are seriously damaging to


Scottish education, especially that which applies to pre-fives. We believe that the voucher provisions are seriously flawed. We became increasingly concerned during our discussions in Committee about the lack of any due consideration by the Government of the quality of education provision for pre-fives.
Issues of quality assurance lie at the heart of the Government's proposals. In another place, when the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill was being discussed, their lordships saw fit to introduce an amendment that would require the Government to ask the House to evaluate pilot schemes for nursery vouchers.
The very proposal to introduce nursery vouchers is wrong. It is educationally divisive. At its root is a fundamental flaw: nursery vouchers do not guarantee a nursery place. The Government are intent on using their majority in this place to force through wrong-headed legislation. I urge the Government to take on board the serious quality assurance issues that must be taken into account and to allow the House to apply detailed consideration in evaluating the pilot schemes that the Government are intent on forcing through and implementing.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady suggests that nursery vouchers are divisive. I cannot understand that, because every parent in Scotland will be offered £1,100 for their child's nursery education. That is certainly what my constituents want, and they resent the hon. Lady's attempt to remove the option from them when they are desperate to ensure that their children have a nursery education.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman was a source of great enjoyment to Labour Members in Committee. Yet again he fails to take on board the basic point: a nursery voucher does not guarantee a nursery place. In correspondence, Scottish Office officials have acknowledged that a nursery voucher does not guarantee a nursery place.

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. She should not be misled by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). His constituents are getting proper nursery places, not vouchers. South Ayrshire is expanding its nursery provision by providing proper nursery classes in spare classrooms. That is exactly the sort of provision that Labour proposes, and Labour-controlled South Ayrshire council is introducing it. The hon. Gentleman's constituents, who will not be represented by him for much longer, are getting a first-class education service.

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the voice of common sense from Ayrshire. It is clear that parents want good-quality nursery provision, and sensible, well-organised nursery provision by local authorities has been widely welcomed.
One damaging effect of the Bill is that it will undermine important partnerships between the public, private and voluntary sectors in Scotland. All three sectors are as one in condemning the Government for the lack of quality assurance and for the quality of education provision.
In Committee, Conservative Members paid limited attention to quality and to how nursery providers are to be assessed. Eighty profiles of education provision have

been received and 57 approved. Who is checking those self-assessed applications to provide nursery places? Everyone, from local authorities to the voluntary sector and to the Scottish Independent Nurseries Association, has one common fear about the provision of nursery education: the intervention of cowboy operators interested only in getting money out of the Government, under a convoluted system that will not benefit anyone who cannot secure a nursery school place for their child.
I am deeply concerned about the Government's proposals for evaluation. It is critical that the House be given an opportunity to decide whether the pilots have been fair, sensible, open and honest and whether the evaluation scheme has been properly conducted. The university of Stirling is to evaluate the scheme in the four pilot areas in Scotland. Membership of the research advisory committee has not been announced, but we know that applicants with considerable expertise in child care and education, such as Children in Scotland, have not been included.
The university of Stirling—this is a very important point—is already aware of the terms of the evaluation: cost-effectiveness, not quality. That is deplorable, because the education and care of children at the most vulnerable stage of their education will not be properly assessed for quality. It is all the more disturbing when we bear in mind the fact that 50 per cent. of a child's educational development takes place before the age of five.
The Government's lack of strategic cohesion for pre-five provision in Scotland has been apparent throughout consideration of the Bill. Their failure to give the Scottish Pre-School Play Association adequate funds to allow it to implement improved training is a clear sign that they do not intend the Bill to contribute to the education debate in Scotland, but are using it as a fudge in the run-up to a general election.
I do not think that the Government have been clear enough on the whole question of what new money will be made available for the provision of nursery vouchers throughout Scotland; nor have we been given enough information about the true administration costs. On Second Reading, we were told that only 2 per cent. of the budget would be spent on administration. We were told that £22 would be needed to deal with a voucher that would have to go through 10 stages before it could be fully implemented, but we estimate the cost at £290.
In Committee, many of our questions were not answered. The amendments seek to introduce some cohesion to the legislation, but, at the end of the day, we can improve the quality of education for pre-fives in Scotland only by getting away from the whole concept of nursery vouchers, and introducing a system of nursery education that provides adequately for children aged three and four.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Lady feel an apology coming on? She may remember that, in Committee, she denounced my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for forcing a vote on exactly the same two amendments, on the ground that they would make it impossible to return to the matter on Report. She also said that, because a Tory rebellion was under way, she anticipated an Opposition victory. She was clearly wrong:


we are now discussing not one but two amendments that would allow us to do exactly the same thing. Will she now apologise to my hon. Friend?

Mrs. Liddell: Far from apologising, I will make the point that Labour Members are interested in substance rather than stunts. Because of activities of members of the Committee, we missed opportunities to explore issues that should have been explored much more fully with a Government who welcomed the opportunity not to answer questions. The amendments give us a chance to pin the Government down, to ensure that quality assurance is introduced and to return to key issues involving the evaluation of the pilots for the nursery voucher scheme.
Before the Bill was introduced, the Government undertook a consultative exercise. More than 80 per cent. of those consulted opposed their proposals, but the Government still insisted on introducing the legislation. Here is yet more proof that they do not listen. Earlier this afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) had been talking sense all along. I now give him an opportunity to acknowledge that he has also been wrong in regard to the proposals for nursery vouchers, and ask him to reconsider—on behalf of the Government—this wrong-headed proposal for the education of Scotland's pre-fives.

Mr. Welsh: I cannot allow the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) about the Scottish National party's commitment to education to go unremarked. I have taught in Scotland, at different levels, and my commitment—and that of my party—to Scottish education is clearly on record: we are 100 per cent. behind it, and we want it to progress. The hon. Lady explains her behaviour in Committee by the claim that she was exploring the details of what the Government meant, but in practice Labour was simply colluding with the Conservatives to get the measure through as quickly as possible.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: You have a cheek.

Mr. Welsh: I do not "have a cheek"—that is what happened, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the Committee record.
Amendment No. 2 deletes the entire provision relating to grants for the Government's proposed nursery education changes.

Mr. Hood: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the vote on the Committee of the Regions during the Maastricht treaty debate, and the "Dear Margaret" letter, when he colluded with the Government. We need no lectures from him about colluding with the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need lectures, but we want a debate on the amendment before the House.

Mr. Welsh: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not mention when the Labour party colluded with the Government over the referendum vote.
My amendment would force the Government to undertake consultation and it would delay implementation of vouchers until the proposed pilot schemes have been properly evaluated and reported to Parliament.
Before moving to the substantive arguments in favour of the various amendments and against the Government's proposals for nursery education, I believe that it is necessary to place this debate in context. This afternoon, Scottish democracy will yet again be sidelined because a majority of Scottish Members will vote for the amendments, but our votes will be ignored and our will overturned by the votes of hon. Members representing a majority of English constituencies—people with no knowledge and even less interest in Scotland's education system. This is the Westminster question and no amount of tartan tokenism, either through the powerless nonsense of a Grand Committee or through returning the Stone of Destiny, will hide the true gesture being made today by the Tory party towards Scotland—two fingers to Scottish opinion, to democracy and to the future of Scottish children's education.
The Government's proposals are opposed not only by a majority of Scottish Members, but by teachers, parents and local authorities, who have highlighted the legislation's many inadequacies, but their views will be ignored today by the Westminster machine. The Bill is proof of the disservice being done to Scotland and to Scottish education by the outdated Union.
The debate should have been used by the hon. Member for Monklands, East to apologise. In many ways the hon. Lady apologised for her hysterical misrepresentations in the Scottish press, following my attempt to oppose the Government on this issue in Committee. The hon. Lady assured us that the amendment introducing a further stage of parliamentary scrutiny, now under discussion as amendments Nos. 3 and 8, could not be debated again. I hope that, for once, she will have the decency to admit her mistake and to apologise for her blatant misrepresentations. She told the Scottish press:
I am absolutely furious. They have stopped us taking this back to the Floor of the House where we could have defeated the Government.
She was wrong on both counts: it is back on the Floor of the House and she has little chance of defeating the Government.
The hon. Lady also said:
Mr. Welsh has cost us the ability to disable this Bill".
We shall find out about that when the Division Lobby empties. The record will show that the amendment was again debated and again defeated—if, indeed, Labour Members press the amendment to a vote; their record in that respect is not good, and I had to move some of their amendments in Committee.

Mrs. Fyfe: Before the history of this topic is falsified, will the hon. Gentleman recall that we were bound to be defeated on that day? That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) wanted to withdraw the amendment. Tonight we have at least a fighting chance. It all depends on the turnout. There was no chance in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Welsh: I presume that that is why the Labour Whip had to demand two votes—the second time to insist that he did not vote.

Mrs. Liddell: I must put on record the fact that on that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) demanded two votes because he had forgotten that he had given a commitment to allow the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), leave to attend to a bereavement in his immediate family.

Mr. Welsh: I fully understand that, and such pairing is fully acceptable, but any apology should be made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who made the mistake of voting the first time and then demanding a second vote. Pairing is acceptable and it should have happened in the normal way, but two votes took place. If the Whip is not up to his job and makes mistakes, that is his problem. [Interruption.] I notice the continuing collusion between the Labour and Tory Front-Bench teams, but anyone who reads the Committee will find out exactly what happened.
From their mailbags, Members should be aware of the many well-expressed concerns of parents, parents' groups, teachers and local government professionals. Again, mainstream opinion in Scotland is lined up against the Government's proposal, but it will be ignored by the massed ranks of Tory Lobby fodder. That is the reality behind the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
The Government claim to favour parental choice, but their actions fly in the face of that. When parents are consulted about nursery education they do not choose these Tory vouchers. By a majority of nine to one they favour free state nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. That is what Scottish people want and the Government should deliver it.
Perhaps Conservative Members should focus their attention on the parental views that were expressed in the recent Educational Institute of Scotland System 3 survey entitled:
Education in 1996: Scots speaking out".
They should consult that rather than simply following the Whips into the Government Lobby. I recommend that they examine the Scottish National party's fully costed proposals for a free state nursery scheme. They show that a high-quality, universal and free education structure for pre-school children can be created in Scotland. In the first four years of independence, our proposals would create a nursery place for all three and four-year-olds whose parents wished that provision.
The voucher proposal is political dogma and it will be bad for education in Scotland. As our detailed proposals show, it is not the best way to meet education needs in our country. [Interruption.] Labour Front-Bench Members laugh. When they are asked for a policy they go out for lunch, and when they are asked to put a price on a policy they simply disappear. Unless they have similarly costed pounds and pence policies, they should not laugh. The standard being set in Scotland is what the electorate wish; unless Labour can match that, it is simply failing in its task.

Mr. George Robertson: Labour made a pledge.

Mr. Welsh: I know about Labour pledges. I was in the House from 1974 to 1979 and I know how much such pledges are worth.
The voucher scheme should be abandoned, but the system supported by all unionists in the House will mean that, against the wishes of the Scottish people, the voucher scheme will simply be slammed through by English Members who are not now in their places but who will provide the majority.
Amendment No. 2 has my full support. It would get rid of the damaging and divisive voucher proposal, prevent the creeping privatisation of our education system and ensure the maintenance of standards which are threatened by the wild and loose drafting of this part of the legislation.
Amendment No. 8 in my name, and amendment No. 3, would ensure adequate scrutiny of the pilot schemes, which are to be the test bed for the voucher proposal. Surely when the test has been established, its results should be evaluated before proceeding further with the scheme. That straightforward, simple point has been totally denied by the Government. It is eminently sensible and would help to fill the gaps in consultation and consensus which have marked the Government's attempts to steamroller this ideological nonsense through the House.
The amendments will allow hon. Members to assess the quality of nursery provision under the voucher scheme and to judge the impact on the poorest families who may not be able to afford the top-up costs for the local nursery. The amendments would also allow us to assess the administrative efficiency of the scheme and to see whether too much money was being diverted from education by a clumsy administrative system.
I have outlined just some of the concerns expressed by parents and professionals and they should be examined again by the House when we are in a better position to judge the impact of the Government's proposals. Obviously, that means after the pilot schemes have run their course. The Government have made no attempt to accept those eminently sensible arguments, which are supported by majority opinion and have consensus outside the House.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that too much haste at this stage could have a damaging effect on thousands of Scottish children. I suspect that the legislation has been motivated more by political than by educational considerations. That is why we seek to introduce a time-out period which would ensure that the Secretary of State's narrow and destructive ideology did not seriously damage Scottish nursery education.
The principle of nursery vouchers is deeply flawed and I welcome amendment No. 7 as an attempt to improve poor legislation. It raises a number of issues that were discussed at length in Committee. The Government have failed to address the issue of quality assurance both in education terms and with regard to the environment within which education takes place. I hope that the Minister will respond to that issue today, because he certainly did not respond to it adequately in Committee.
Legislation currently covers safety in private nurseries, but there is no provision detailing adequate standards for buildings or fixtures and fittings in those nurseries. While local authorities can ensure the safety of radiators, plugs


and sockets under current legislation, they cannot ensure such matters as adequate toilet facilities. That is why amendment No. 7 is important.
The Government's proposals have been shown to be deeply flawed in themselves, but they have been shown to be flawed especially in comparison with the proposals made by the Scottish National party. The House should take the opportunity to remove what is bad, or at least to try to improve it.
The Minister has a chance to respond to those detailed points, and I hope that he will do so before the end of this debate.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: This group of amendments goes to the heart of the voucher question because, as hon. Members have already made clear, vouchers do not necessarily represent places. In some local authorities it has been suggested that many places are available for four-year-olds—for up to 90 per cent. of them in some areas—and that the extra money would provide local authorities with elbow-room, with which they could build additional nursery schools. I do not think that that is a particularly well-founded assumption. The cost of building or adapting new premises to the standards that we want would certainly not be possible with the type of figures that are currently being mentioned.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Is it in order for me to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) is currently colluding with the Tory Whip to enable this debate to proceed quickly? Indeed, he scurried back to his seat as I said that. Is not that disgraceful hypocrisy by the SNP?

Mr. O'Neill: It is no more than we have come to expect from it, with its double standards.

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: No; I do not want to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on with it.

Mr. O'Neill: I was bored to tears by all the nonsense that I heard from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—the girning, moaning and greeting that we hear from him in his customary addresses, whether they are about the system that governs the House, its membership or the fact that Scottish National party supporters have been out of sight for decades because they colluded with the Tories to bring down the previous Labour Government. The people of Scotland and hon. Members are left cold by all of it. What is important is that we deal with the matter in hand, which is the voucher system—[Interruption.]

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have told him that I will not give way, and that is it. We want to get on with the today's business, and I do not want to take up too much of the House's time.
Certainly the amendment on quality control and the matters of staff training and premises—[Interruption.]

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An accusation was made against me that I was trying to speed up proceedings. That is not true. But the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has now admitted that he wishes to expedite proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a bogus point of order, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has made it very clear that he will not give way, and that is a matter for him to decide.

Mr. O'Neill: If this legislation were to be passed—we do not want it to be—we envisage circumstances in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, there is a possibility that hole-in-the-wall, cowboy-type operations will be established. Therefore, we must have standards set down very early on in the proceedings.
We should have hoped that the pilot scheme would have allowed for such a cool and reasoned response. In his reply, perhaps the Minister will clarify the position and tell us whether only financial cost-effectiveness will be examined or whether the possible impact of the voucher scheme on the quality of available provision will be examined, because the two are not the same. That issue has already been raised by hon. Members.
Many hon. Members fear that well-intentioned people with a great commitment to youngsters will open nursery facilities, on the assumption that they will be able to make money and to go the distance, but that they will not have the necessary teaching or nursing staffing levels. We must consider those matters, because they were given scant attention at the Committee stage.
It is important that we pass these amendments to ensure that the Minister has a chance to tell us what will be done to ensure quality control of the play facilities and the course content to which the youngsters will be exposed. We will need far greater assurances that there will be high enough standards of staff training so that the best possible teaching will be provided.
Last but not least, there is the whole question of premises. In Committee, most of us were disturbed by the cavalier disregard of even the most basic questions of the toilet and washing facilities required by children of this age. They need special facilities. They also need special safety provisions such as consideration of the location of plug points, electrical fittings and so on. We need a great deal more clarification of those matters. They should have been dealt with in Committee but they were not because the Minister did not give us the assurances that we required.
Even if the principle were to be lost—I hope that it is not—the amendment is essential to ensure that the youngsters are properly protected and are taught appropriately by suitable and qualified people. The children must be instructed and allowed to play in facilities that are safe and in which most parents would be happy to leave them. It is immaterial whether that assurance comes from amendment No. 10 or amendment No. 7, but the point has been identified and it must be addressed. Until it is included, the legislation will be


unwanted. It will be dangerous for the children whom every hon. Member wishes to protect and nurture. As currently drafted, the Bill does not meet that requirement.

Mr. Wallace: In a debate that has so far caused a considerable amount of dispute, I shall begin by saying something that I hope will be agreed on both sides of the House, which is that there is a recognition of the value of pre-school education. Studies in the United States have shown that for every dollar spent on pre-school education, the payback over subsequent years is something like seven times that. Clearly, the investment is well worth it to get our children on to the right path before they go to school.
The problem is the method by which the Government are seeking to honour the pledge given by Baroness Thatcher when she was responsible for education in 1972. She opened up the prospect of nursery education for all.
My hon. Friends and I are concerned that the Government's chosen route of nursery vouchers will not necessarily deliver the expectations. It does not automatically follow that, because a parent has a voucher, there will be a place for the child. In some parts of the country we know that the availability of nursery places is scant. As the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said, many parents will not be able to afford the top-up costs. Also, we have not yet had an assessment of the effect that it will have on nursery education currently provided for three-year-olds, which may be stopped in some cases if there has to be expanded provision for four-year-olds. So there are serious drawbacks to the chosen route of nursery vouchers.
The funding that will be made available will do nothing to enable the expansion of the number of properly trained nursery teachers. Anyone who has anything to do with young children recognises the skill, dedication and particular training required by pre-school teachers. None of the debates has mentioned any resources that have been earmarked to allow that expansion of trained teachers. When I raised that matter with the Secretary of State in the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling in January, he seemed to suggest that the provision of well-trained teachers was an ideal to which we might aspire, with the clear implication that it would not always be the case. That is why I particularly welcome amendment No. 7, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and amendment No. 10 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, as they seek to import into the voucher scheme some element of quality assurance and quality control.
Will the Minister specifically address the two amendments which seek to impose minimum requirements? It is not unreasonable that parents should have some quality assurance when they are asked to send their children to a particular establishment. I accept that there probably will not be agreement on all the different requirements, so amendment No. 10 allows considerable flexibility as to the range of quality assurance that would be required. Parents will be able to decide where to send their children, if they have that choice, so in some respects, there will be a subjective element of quality. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that there must be a floor and minimum standards.
Amendment No. 10 would require that the regulations established by the Secretary of State should include a complaints procedure. If we are to have quality assurance,

it is important that there should be a complaints procedure so that parents who believe that the quality of pre-school education to which their children are entitled and have every legitimate right to expect is not being delivered have a relatively simple means of expressing that concern and using the complaints procedure to ensure that any difficulty is addressed as quickly as possible.
It is important that there should be a complaints procedure, particularly in respect of inspection. Although we were told on Second Reading that there would be an increase in the number of inspectors of nursery and pre-school establishments, there remains a widespread belief that it will still be insufficient. If inspection is to be limited, it is even more important that the parents have an opportunity to raise complaints and concerns in a way that will result in action.
Although the point does not need much elaboration, we have not yet heard an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government have thus far set their face against basic minimum requirements for those providing nursery education. The Government claim to be the friend of the consumer, so the consumer should expect at least minimum quality control in respect of a vitally important issue such as the education of our young children.

Mrs. Fyfe: A few days ago when I was opening my mail, I saw an envelope marked, "Important voucher enclosed". I thought that there must have been some mistake, but I discovered that it was from one of those firms that offers a car as a major prize if one enters a prize draw. We are all accustomed to receiving such mail and we are all inclined to condemn it, but it has to be said on behalf of the firms that engage in such enterprises that at least there is a real car to be won by somebody. They do not pretend that if those who have been given the vouchers gather together in one place, someone will make sure that they all win a prize.
The difference between those offers and the Government's scheme is that with the latter, having a voucher does not guarantee anything. It does not guarantee a place at any particular nursery; it does not even guarantee that there will be a nursery on any given site anywhere in Scotland.
The Government's belief that somehow the market will provide and respond to people waving £1,100 vouchers has still to be demonstrated. Parents in Scotland will be severely disappointed as the Government are leading them to believe that there will be provision, at least for four-year-olds. In some areas, particularly in rural Scotland and the islands, it will be difficult to ensure that there is a nursery school. That is the basic reason why we are so opposed to a voucher scheme and seek a proper guarantee from the Government. I look forward to a Labour Government introducing such a scheme so that children have a real nursery place and not merely a piece of paper saying that there may be a place somewhere at some time.
There are two further specific aspects to which I hope the Minister will respond. We debated special needs of the under-fives at length in Committee. It is true that, in some of the publicity material that the Government put out, reference was made to children with special needs, but key questions remain unanswered. It is still not clear how we can be sure that any provider—especially some Johnny-come-lately who has just started up, happened to read some information on how to run a nursery school


and filled in the form correctly—will be able to identify all children who happen to have special needs. Such children are not always readily recognisable. It is important that their needs are recognised and acted on at as early an age as possible, not only to save future costs that could climb rapidly, but for the sake of the children, so that they can be helped to develop to their full capability. We are still awaiting reassurance on that point. I cannot understand how the Minister can be so sensible, open-minded and forthcoming about the Scottish Qualifications Authority when we are talking about relatively adult people, but delay giving us clear guarantees on the under-fives.
5 pm
If I recall correctly, when Labour Members raised the question in Committee of the value of the voucher and how grossly inadequate it is likely to be in relation to the needs of special needs children, we were told that the pilot scheme, which is being supervised by people who are still at university, would be able to identify the sums concerned. But parents are still waiting for any reassurance that those needs will be met. Substantial sums could be involved.
We could have sold tickets for the Committee at times. At one stage, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) and I had a run-in—I wish that he was present today—about why a nursery must have facilities such as toilets, cloakroom accommodation and all sorts of equipment permanently available and not stashed away every night in a church hall or some other adult provision. Is that the level to which we have fallen? It sounds as if hon. Members are so unaccustomed to discussing the needs of the pre-fives that such things need to be spelled out. It was an extraordinary debate. I thought that the message had finally got across and that it was understood why permanent provision for under-fives was essential and why they should not be forced to make do with anything that happens to be available in the way of a hall that is free for a few hours. That is not an adequate way in which to deal with the needs of our under-fives.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I will save the Labour Whip a heart attack by intervening on my hon. Friend rather than making a speech of my own.
To return to the point about special needs, does my hon. Friend agree that where children have been identified as having special needs and they enter mainstream education, there is no question but that they receive special assistance? It is contradiction of the idea that the programme is educational if Ministers persist in saying either that no special assistance for children with special needs will be recognised in the voucher system, or that some pilot project from Stirling university is needed to establish whether special needs provision is required. Everybody knows that special provision and a little extra expenditure is needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no reason why that concession or right should not be granted?

Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always said that it is not satisfactory just to accept whatever the people at Stirling university come up

with when they comment on the pilot scheme. The Government should have been willing to say something more definitive and give more of a guarantee to parents of children with special needs. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, children at school may get a record of special needs, but, as we all know how, it is sometimes difficult to enforce provision of what that record says that the child requires. It is therefore all the more important that the identification of needs is made at the earliest possible stage by competent people and that the sums involved are guaranteed.
Unless guarantees are given, a system could evolve in which a child with special needs did not receive a place or had less access and choice than children who did not have special needs. Special needs children could be treated less justly through no fault of their own, simply because they have needs that are expensive to provide for. That would be totally unacceptable and unjust, and it is high time the Minister said something more definitive. I hope that he will do so tonight.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I, too, support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends calling for a proper assessment of the pilot schemes before the Government go ahead with full implementation of the voucher scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) gave cogent reasons why that is necessary, and I should like to add a particular concern of mine about why such a proper assessment is required.
My concern relates to the way in which the voucher scheme will impact on the Gaelic-medium sector of pre-school provision and the need to ensure that such an impact is properly assessed when we review the results of the pilot schemes. There is a Gaelic-medium sector in three of the four pilot areas—in east Renfrewshire, in Highland and Argyll, and in Bute, and it is important that the impact on them is considered.
The Gaelic-medium sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in pre-school provision, and the Minister will be aware by now that there is a great deal of concern in the Gaelic community that the voucher system will not cater properly for that sector. Provision in the sector involves greater costs because, obviously, special materials need to be developed. They cannot just be taken off the shelf. Such additional costs cannot be incorporated into a simple voucher scheme that attaches the same amount to every child.
At the same time, there is a historical record of exclusion of Gaelic from education, which we all now recognise and acknowledge. Indeed, it was recognised by the Secretary of State in his speech at Stirling university earlier this year. Given the Government's recognition, we have every right to expect their rhetoric to be put into practice.
There are two specific ways in which the Minister could respond to the concern, and I would be grateful if he could give specific answers to them. First, the remit of the Stirling university team that will be conducting the assessment should include the task of looking specifically at how the pilot scheme has impacted on the Gaelic-medium sector. Has it catered properly for the additional costs involved, has it dampened the rise in the sector's popularity or has it been given a helping hand?
The second specific suggestion has been made to the Minister by representative organisations from the Gaelic community, especially the Gaelic Pre-School Association.


It is suggested that someone with experience of the Gaelic-medium sector should be on the advisory research committee—the overall committee that will be considering and supervising the work of the Stirling university team. I know that the Minister has indicated that he wants that advisory team to be more focused on general issues than a particular issue, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that if the Government are concerned about overcoming the historical legacy of the exclusion of Gaelic from mainstream education, they should think very seriously about having someone with experience of Gaelic-medium education on the advisory team. If the Minister insists that there is no place for someone with specific Gaelic experience on the advisory committee, may I further suggest that the advisory committee at least consult Gaelic organisations? The Minister should make it clear to the advisory committee that he will make that requirement in the committee's review. Much attention will be paid to the Minister's response to those suggestions.
The Government have prided themselves on supporting the Gaelic-medium sector in recent years and I acknowledge the support that has been received, but that support has generated an ever-increasing demand. The Government cannot just rest on what has been achieved: they must keep pace with the demand. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the need to include the Gaelic-medium sector in the research to be undertaken by the Stirling university team and the work of the advisory research committee.

Mr. McAllion: I was very interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe); she could have sold tickets for the Committee stage of the Bill. It is a bizarre notion that anyone would part with good money to listen to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), although they might part with good money not to have to listen to him.
Even more bizarre was the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). The Scottish National party allegedly holds this Parliament in contempt, yet he spent the latter part of his speech picking over the arcane rules of the Westminster Parliament. Indeed, he boasted of the SNP's prowess in manipulating those rules better than any other Scottish party; so if people want to vote for the true Westminster party at the next election in Scotland, I suppose that they should vote SNP.
The substance of the debate is far more important than the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus, East. I wish to support everything that my hon. Friends have said. Conservative Members' claims about nursery vouchers are entirely bogus. A few moments ago, when the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was in the Chamber, he made it sound as though, if people vote for the Tories at the next general election, they will receive in the post a cheque for £1,100 with which they can buy a nursery place for their child. That is entirely wrong, because no such thing can happen. A nursery voucher is just a piece of paper which guarantees no one a nursery place in any school anywhere in Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill said, the vouchers are socially divisive, because some people can top up that £1,100 and use the state money and their own private money to guarantee that their child has access to quality nursery education, while others cannot top up the

£1,100 and will be prey to cowboy operators and other Johnny-come-lately operators who will appear on the scene with the support of the Tories to make a quick buck at the expense of three and four-year-olds.
The Minister cannot simply brush the amendments aside, because they are about quality and standards in nursery schools throughout Scotland. We shall achieve quality and high standards only if we are prepared to pay for them, but the Government are not prepared to do so. The amendments are about the standard and safety of buildings and the quality of the teachers and helpers who run nursery schools. In the wake of the recent tragic incidents involving young children in schools, we cannot afford not to invest the maximum amount of public money in school provision, including nursery education.
Ultimately, this country's future will turn on our education system and, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, the earlier we intervene in education, the more beneficial will be the reward to society as a whole. Society must make it clear that it is prepared to invest whatever is required to ensure that our children have access to the best possible education.
I support all the amendments in this group. Some have been tabled by my hon. Friends who represent the Scottish Labour party and others have been tabled by Scottish National party members and Scottish Liberal Democrats. Taken together, those three Scottish parties represent 62 of the 72 Scottish constituencies, and we can be sure that all three will vote for the amendments when Divisions are called. However, it is also guaranteed that they will be defeated.
5.15 pm
Conservative Members ask me, "What could a Scottish Parliament do that a Scottish Committee of this House cannot do?" I shall tell them what it could do: defeat this Government. It could defeat the proposal for nursery vouchers; and it could carry these amendments and guarantee that quality nursery education was available to three and four-year-olds throughout Scotland. The House is not prepared to do that because, essentially, it is not interested in what happens in Scotland.
Amendment No. 3 is similar to an amendment that was carried in the House of Lords and caused the Government some concern. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment in England and Wales described it as a wrecking amendment. I have a copy of her letter, in which she deals with the Government's defeat in the Lords. She says:
Addressing the issue in the Lords is preferable to waiting until Commons consideration of Lords amendments. We may experience greater difficulty overturning the amendment in the Commons.
The Government would experience greater difficulty overturning that wrecking amendment in the Commons, because hon. Members who represent constituencies in England and Wales, who are not present tonight, would be here and would fight for their constituents. They would thus help to defeat the Government. But that is not the case with this amendment, because even Scottish Conservative Back Benchers are not concerned to be here. They are so supine that they will lie down and do whatever the Government ask them to do. English Conservative Back Benchers will vote down anything that Scotland wants, because it does not matter to them.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has rebelled against the Government in the past and has been admired for doing so, but is he prepared to vote for the amendments? Do they contain anything to which he objects? Does he not think that Parliament should look again at the pilot scheme and ensure that Scottish kids have access to good-quality education?

Sir Hector Monro: If I thought that there was anything in what the hon. Gentleman was saying, of course I would support him, but I do not. What the Government are doing is right.

Mr. McAllion: The right hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. I am not the only person who supports the amendments. All the Scottish Members of Parliament do so; public opinion in Scotland and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents say the same as us. They do not want to proceed at breakneck speed with a voucher scheme which may ultimately destroy the basis of nursery education. They want Parliament to take its time to ensure that it gets it right and that enough money is invested in the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see that, it is just as well for him that he will retire at the next general election. Whoever his Tory successor is, he will come neither here nor to any other Parliament once it is established in Scotland.

Mrs. Fyfe: Did my hon. Friend notice that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has just gone on record saying that he does not think that it is necessary to have
appropriate criteria for the quality assurance of the service provided"?
I should have thought that that amendment and the others before us were common sense.

Mr. McAllion: Every Opposition Member thinks that they are plain common sense, but the right hon. Gentleman probably has not even read the amendments that he is prepared to vote down. If he does so, I am sure that he will vote for them, because he is a man of honour.
Anyone with a genuine interest in nursery education should support the amendments. If people vote against them, they do so for political reasons: because they have been told to do so by their Whips; and because they are interested in cutting public spending but not in public services and ordinary people. They are interested only in the big City financiers who worry about the size of the public debt and public spending, and want a bigger share of gross domestic product for their own private profit rather than to spend it on public services. They are the masters whom Conservative Members serve, but they are not served by the Opposition.
We are in favour of quality education and we will vote in support of the amendments. When we get into power, we will ensure that Scottish children get the best—not the second best, which is offered by the Government.

Mr. Salmond: At the risk of upsetting the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—I do not want to pick a fight with him, because he is in enough trouble with his own party—I shall start on the subject of

procedures. Knowing the procedures of the House of Commons is not a symptom of being Westminsterised; it is a symptom of competence.
Earlier, I intervened on the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and drew her attention to remarks that she had made in Committee when the amendments were discussed. She said clearly in several newspapers and on television that this precluded discussion of the same amendments on Report. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Lady does not look enthusiastically in agreement with that, so I checked the record. Here is The Herald of 21 June 1996. Stephen McGregor, the parliamentary correspondent, quotes her as saying—

Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we talking about the amendments that we dealt with in Committee, about the previous set of amendments or about the group of amendments before us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not have thought that the House would need reminding that it is talking about the amendment before the House this afternoon, not previous ones. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite in order in comparing them.

Mr. Salmond: Yes, we are discussing amendments Nos. 3 and 8—the very amendments that the hon. Member for Monklands, East said could not possibly be discussed on Report. I quote from The Herald newspaper:
I am absolutely furious. They have stopped us taking this back to the Floor of the House where we could have defeated the Government … Mr. Welsh has cost us the ability to disable this Bill".
I do not so much mind the fact that the hon. Lady did not understand that aspect of procedure—she has been in the House for two years. I do mind the fact that, having made that major attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) in the Scottish press and elsewhere, she does not have the elementary courtesy to come to the Dispatch Box—

Mrs. Liddell: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I will let the hon. Lady in in a second or two. She need not concern herself about that.
It is interesting that the hon. Lady took the position that these amendments could not come back on Report, so why on earth does her name appear on an amendment that does exactly that on Report?

Mrs. Liddell: We are witnessing another example of how, because we are discussing nursery vouchers, the hon. Gentleman is determined to behave with nursery antics. He well knows that, if we have a vote in Committee on a subject, it places in jeopardy the possibility of a vote on the Floor of the House. It also put us in the position where our tactics were apparent and, frankly, it was a stunt by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) to cover up his own limitations in Committee.

Mr. Salmond: That is not what the hon. Lady said in the Scottish press. She said that it precluded a vote and a discussion on the Floor of the House. Obviously, that is


untrue. We have two amendments before us that do exactly the same thing as the amendment that was voted on in Committee. The hon. Lady would do herself a lot of good if she would admit her mistakes, show a little humility—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should get away from the mistakes and personalities now and get back to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Salmond: I am extremely glad that we are debating amendments Nos. 3 and 8 on the Floor of the House tonight.
I am told that the second aspect of what the hon. Member for Monklands, East said was that there was some chance of the amendments being defeated on Report. If they are defeated, it certainly will not be because of my eloquence or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) or any Labour Member, for, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East so astutely pointed out, hardly any Conservative Members are present, and most of the eight or nine who are present are on the payroll vote, with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Dumfries.

Sir Hector Monro: Right hon. Member.

Mr. Salmond: The sole exception is the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—I beg his pardon—to whom we should presumably direct all our attention, because we must convince him to be the Conservative rebellion on amendments Nos. 3 and 8.
That betrays the folly of an argument that I have heard many times on the Floor of the House; it was used by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) during the passage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill in 1994. We read in the Scottish papers that there would be a Conservative rebellion and that, if the arguments were put in the right way, the 1994 Act would be disabled. After 120 consecutive defeats in Committee, the hon. Gentleman clung to the same argument we have heard today on nursery education.
How on earth, even if we could appeal to the better nature of Members from English constituencies on these aspects, can we appeal to their better nature when they are not even here to listen to the substance of the argument? They will not even do us the elementary courtesy of listening to our arguments before rejecting them.
Some hon. Members know that I have known the Secretary of State for Scotland for a long time. I remember clearly that, at St. Andrews university, he argued for vouchers, not for nursery education but for primary education, for secondary education, for tertiary education—throughout the education system.
That puts this measure into context. This is the foot in the door to the general changing of the education system in Scotland from universal provision at primary, secondary and tertiary level. The Government want to get a nursery voucher system in as a foot in the door for a voucher system where education can be bought and sold, like any other commodity in the marketplace.
On Monday, the Secretary of State said that he would launch a petition in Scotland to harness the will of the Scottish people on the issue of the constitution. However,

in the consultation document on these provisions, 80 per cent. of Scottish opinion was against the voucher system. If the Conservative party will appeal to Scottish opinion on one measure, why is it not prepared to listen to the clearly enunciated Scottish opinion on the issue of vouchers?
The hon. Member for Dundee, East rightly mentioned social divisiveness. I do not know whether I will get him into more trouble by agreeing with him or disagreeing with him, but he made a profound point about the socially divisive nature of a scheme in which better-off families will be able to top up the voucher value—an option that is not available to many families in Scotland. If a comprehensive national system of education in Scotland has meant anything—it has meant a great deal to many of us in increasing our life opportunities—it has meant the availability of the best education to every child in Scotland, regardless of parental background, income or social stratum.
It comes ill, especially from Ministers such as the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who have benefited from that opportunity, to start introducing into our education system a voucher system that can only undermine and disable the national and comprehensive characteristic that makes education available to all, regardless of background.
That is why it is vital that we press amendments at every opportunity, whether it be in Committee or now, on the Floor of the House, because what is at stake is not only a measure on nursery education. This measure in the Bill and the ideology that lies behind it represent a frontal attack on the essence of Scottish education.

Mr. Davidson: I believe that this is a missed opportunity. It is one of the few occasions when pre-five provision in Scotland has been discussed and debated.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Do any more hon. Members wish to speak?

Mr. Davidson: I reassure my hon. Friend that I will not be long.

Mr. Welsh: Collusion!

Mr. Davidson: There was certainly no collusion; if there had been collusion, I should not be speaking. I intend to speak on the amendment. Had the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) spoken to me beforehand, we might have reached an agreement on this matter.
The curse of parts of Scotland is poverty and deprivation, and one of the ways in which many of our people can be helped to break out of that cycle of poverty and deprivation is by spending on pre-five services. Neither the Government nor, regrettably, my party takes this matter sufficiently seriously. We should say clearly and emphatically that much more money should be spent on children from birth to age five, especially those in areas of poverty and deprivation.
There is a connection with the earlier debate about surplus school places. Often, surplus school places have emerged in the areas of greatest deprivation. We have the buildings there and we have the need there. Relatively


small cost would be involved in providing the staffing to provide services for the pre-five children in areas of greatest need. That should be the focus of our provision and of our spending.
It is also important that we consider the needs of single parents who want to return to employment. Pre-five provision is important, not only for the children who receive it but for the members of their family.
Regrettably, the existing pattern of pre-school education is not family friendly or designed to help parents, particularly single parents, find employment—the hours are short and the holidays are long. Pre-five provision should be family friendly, should be longer, should be flexible and should have a longer operating year. People seeking employment should be assisted, but again, it costs money. The Labour party would be prepared to spend the necessary amount of money to ensure that children in areas of deprivation are able to get a first-class education and that their families are able to find jobs.
Finally, I reiterate the fact that the Scots do not want the measure—they have rejected it up and down the country. It has come about only because of the present practice of unionism—the way in which it is operated by the Government. I can think of few measures more designed to drive support away from the Union than the way in which the Government intend to drive the measure through the House today.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) was a bit like watching summer television: repeat after repeat after repeat. There was no need for the hon. Lady to give the House edited highlights of her pretty press releases. I was flattered that she used some of my best lines when responding to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
As hon. Members know, the evaluation of the pilot year will be carried out by an independent team from Stirling university. As I have explained, its remit is extensive and it is available for all hon. Members to see. Since my first public comments about the evaluation—at the evidence-gathering sitting of a Select Committee of another place in Glasgow—I have stressed the importance that my colleagues and I put on the evaluation. We are determined that the voucher system should deliver the maximum benefits for its ultimate consumers—pre-school children—and the evaluation will be a crucial tool in ensuring that that happens.
The Opposition have consistently attempted to convince the watching world that the results of the evaluation will arrive all in one go and without much prior warning. The results of the evaluation of the pre-school voucher pilot will not emerge suddenly and from nowhere; they will emerge steadily over the pilot year. In addition, many of the key findings—especially vital results relating to operational aspects of the system—will be known early on. Moreover, we will share the results widely.
We have arranged with the Stirling university team that it will provide not just a final report but interim reports—and not just interim reports but dissemination events at which the emerging findings can be reported and discussed.

Moreover, Stirling university will not be conducting the evaluation in isolation; it will do so with local evaluations conducted by each of the pilot authorities.
In addition, the team will conduct the evaluation with the advice of the evaluation advisory committee. The committee will include individuals nominated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Hon. Members are already aware that a survey of parental views is part of the remit of the research team. I am confident that the broad range of views available will prove useful to the research team. I hope that its make-up will satisfy the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who referred to consultation at the end of his amendment No. 8.

Mr. Macdonald: Will part of the team's specific remit be to look at the impact of the pilot scheme on the Gaelic-medium sector?

Mr. Robertson: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member said and I shall write to him. The research commissioned by the Scottish Office is generally published, and this evaluation will be no exception. I shall be happy to lay before Parliament copies of the final report of the Stirling team.
Amendment No. 7, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred, seeks to place a requirement on providing centres in relation to the level of qualifications and the training of staff. This matter is capable of being regulated, where necessary, by local authorities under legislation. All authorities require that persons dealing with children in establishments registered under legislation are fit and proper people for such a position. Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools makes judgments on the quality of education provision in a centre.
All the amendments that we have debated seek to destroy the Government's pre-school education initiative in Scotland. I am confident that the House will support my determination not to let that happen.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I wish to make some progress. The results of the pre-school voucher initiative are becoming clear, and the verdict is good. More than 3,200 parents have applied for vouchers and received them. Moreover, there has been a massive expansion of provision in the pilot areas.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister refused to give way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) because he looked at the clock. Am I right in saying that the Report stage is not time limited?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member is correct: the Report stage is not time limited. The Minister may look wherever he likes in the Chamber.

Mr. Robertson: There were once only 20 local authority nursery schools and classes—next year, there will be more than 60. In addition, more than 70 centres in the voluntary and private sectors will be educationally accredited for the first time, having satisfied Her


Majesty's inspectorate of the quality of the education that they have to offer. For the first time, from August, every child in the pre-school year will be guaranteed a place in a quality, accredited pre-school centre. The latest report is that there will be a surplus of places—that is a remarkable achievement, which the Labour party seeks to diminish.
The amendments cannot be accepted—the future of young children in Scotland would be blighted if they were. Hon. Members must oppose the amendments and approve the Government's far-sighted strategy as set out in the Bill.

Mrs. Liddell: I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendments. They were placed on the amendment paper to seek an improvement in the quality of pre-five education in Scotland. Instead of addressing the significant issues that the amendments raise, certain hon. Members have chosen to go down the route of posing and posturing. The issues are important to the people of Scotland. It is regrettable that hon. Members who represent a party that has Scotland in its name should try to duck the issues of great importance. We have heard the smug and patronising tones of hon. Members who wish to cover up the fact that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) made limited contributions on these issues in Committee.
I refer to the amendments in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. The Minister has not addressed some significant issues. Quality assurance is an important element of our pre-five provision—that is recognised by people in Scotland who support the Labour party and by those who do not. The Government have ducked the issue. The Government do not have sufficient confidence in their proposals to allow hon. Members to debate the evaluation of the pilot scheme.
I believe that amendment No. 3 is the most significant amendment on the amendment paper. I shall put it to the vote, because it is very important that hon. Members have the opportunity to evaluate a proposal that will have a fundamental impact on the provision of pre-five education in Scotland.
My hon. Friends made important points, not least of which was that made repeatedly by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), about special needs. The Government have not responded to her points. I am delighted to hear that the Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the Gaelic-medium sector.
I make no apology for repeating again and again that a nursery voucher is not a guarantee of a nursery place—it will flaw the provision of pre-five education in Scotland. The Government have not answered the points that were made in Committee and on Report. It is regrettable that the Government are seeking to introduce such a measure when it is against the will of hon. Members and the people of Scotland.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 291.

Division No. 184]
[5.39 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Alton, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainger, Nick
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Austin-Walker, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)





Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Sam


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Bayley, Hugh
Gapes, Mike


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Garrett, John


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Bennett, Andrew F
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bermingham, Gerald
Godsiff, Roger


Berry, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Betts, Clive
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Blunkett, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hain, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hall, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Hanson, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Cann, Jamie
Hodge, Margaret


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hoey, Kate


Chidgey, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Home Robertson, John


Church, Judith
Hood, Jimmy


Clapham, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Clelland, David
Hoyle, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hutton, John


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cox, Tom
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Etherington, Bill
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatehett, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McKelvey, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
Maclennan, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
McNamara, Kevin






MacShane, Denis
Rooney, Terry


McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Maddock, Diana
Salmond, Alex


Mahon, Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Mandelson, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Marek, Dr John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Spellar, John


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudie, George
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mullin, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Paul
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Hara, Edward
Trickett, Jon


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Tyler, Paul


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pearson, Ian
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pickthall, Colin
Wareing, Robert N


Pike, Peter L
Watson, Mike


Pope, Greg
Welsh, Andrew


Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Audrey


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Rendel, David
Wright, Dr Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and


Rooker, Jeff
Ms Ann Coffey.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Booth, Hartley


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Arnold, Jacques
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bright, Sir Graham


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Bates, Michael
Budgen, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Beggs, Roy
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butcher, John


Bendall, Vivian
Butler, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Body, Sir Richard
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carrington, Matthew





Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
Hendry, Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hicks, Sir Robert


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clappison, James
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Elletson, Harold
Legg, Barry


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luff, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Major, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Sir Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Norris, Steve


Hawkins, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard






Paice, James
Stephen, Michael


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Stern, Michael


Patten, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Streeter, Gary


Pawsey, James
Sumberg, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sweeney, Walter


Pickles, Eric
Sykes, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)



Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trotter, Neville


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Twinn Dr Ian


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard




Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Tom
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Ward John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waterson, Nigel


Shersby, Sir Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Sir Roger
Whitney, Ray


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Spink, Dr Robert
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sproat, Iain



Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 11, line 32, at end insert—

'(2A) No arrangements shall be made under subsection (1) above in respect of grants payable under this Act unless and until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament an evaluation of the operation over a period of 12 months of any grant for nursery education in the area of any local authority made during the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98.'.—[Mrs. Liddell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 288.

Division No. 185]
[5.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bell, Stuart


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Austin-Walker, John
Bennett, Andrew F





Benton, Joe
Gerrard, Neil


Bermingham, Gerald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Berry, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A


Betts, Clive
Godsiff, Roger


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blunkett, David
Gordon, Mildred


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, D N
Harvey, Nick


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hinchliffe, David


Chidgey, David
Hodge, Margaret


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoey, Kate


Church, Judith
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Corston, Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Gtenda (H'stead)


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S


Dewar, Donald
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H
Uddell, Mrs Helen


Dowd, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Llwyd, Elfyn


Etherington, Bill
Loyden, Eddie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAllion, John


Fatchett, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McKelvey, William


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maclennan, Robert


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
MacShane, Denis


Galbraith, Sam
McWilliam, John


Galloway, George
Madden, Max


Gapes, Mike
Maddock, Diana


Garrett, John
Mahon, Alice


George, Bruce
Mandelson, Peter






Marek, Dr John
Salmond, Alex


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marttew, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Murphy, Paul
Tayior, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Timms, Stephen


Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Trickett, Jon


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis


Pendry, Tom
Tyler, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pike, Peter L
Wallace, James


Pope, Greg
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watson, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Welsh, Andrew


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Randall, Stuart
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Raynsford, Nick
Wilson, Brian


Reid, Dr John
Winnick, David


Rendel, David
Wise, Audrey


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Worthington, Tony


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wray, Jimmy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wright, Dr Tony


Rogers, Allan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Ms Ann Coffey.


Rowlands, Ted





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Sir Graham


Ashby, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Burns, Simon


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Peter


Bates, Michael
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Booth, Hartley
Churchill, Mr


Boswell, Tim
Clappison, James





Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coe, Sebastian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dtord)


Congdon, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Leigh, Edward


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Faber, David
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, Dudley
Luff, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wlson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Major, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Gorst, Sir John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hicks, Sir Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth






Pickles, Eric
Sweeney, Walter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sykes, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sr Teddy (Southend, E)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trend, Michael


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walden, George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tm (Beaconsfield)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Speed, Sir Keith
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.


Sumberg, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 328

ASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PUPILS

Mrs. Liddell: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 18, leave out lines 16 to 28.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 18, line 20, after 'assessment', insert
', at the request in writing of their parents or guardians,'.

No. 9, in page 18, line 22, at end insert
'; but before making such regulations he shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers.'.

Mrs. Liddell: The amendments will initiate a substantive debate on compulsory testing in schools. I wish to be clear: Labour supports testing as it is outlined in the five-to-14 curriculum. We believe, however, that parents' views should be taken into account whenever we discuss the recently introduced concept of compulsory national testing in Scottish schools. It is, of course, a concept that goes against the principle of post-primary education in Scotland.
We have a five-to-14 curriculum that is based on assessment of the pupil. The pupil is tested at the discretion of the teacher. Following that assessment, it is decided which band of testing should be introduced. There is a history in Scotland of parental opposition to compulsory testing.
It was the Secretary of State, whom we have not seen this evening, who was responsible for seeking to introduce compulsory testing in primary schools. There was a widespread outcry from parents and teachers. As a consequence, an arrangement was brokered by the Minister of State, which resulted in a system of testing, which I confess has been operated with parental support to date. I do not understand why the Government have now seen fit to introduce a system of testing that is at odds with the criteria laid down in the five-to-14 curriculum.
The Government make much of parental choice. I do not understand, therefore, why they should be opposed to the amendment. After all, the purpose behind it is to ensure that parental rights are explicitly stated, and that parents must be given the right to withdraw their children from compulsory tests.
In Committee, we discovered some disturbing elements of the Government's proposals. They were not properly thought out. It seems that they were introduced more as a consequence of electioneering on the part of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), at the Conservative party conference than as a result of careful thought. The Government's proposals were foisted on the Committee at the last moment.
The House will recall that, in the other place, a Special Standing Committee took evidence from a number of notable experts. As that Committee was not aware that compulsory national testing was to be introduced, it was denied the opportunity to consult experts on Scottish education. The eleventh-hour attempt to introduce compulsory national testing is designed to hoodwink the people of Scotland and disguise the Government's intentions.
In considering the Bill in Committee, it became apparent that it was the Government's intention to introduce testing as soon as children arrived for their first year of secondary education. I contend that we are talking about a return to the 11-plus system. We are talking also about introducing a system that will be externally set and marked. It will therefore not be part of the critical testing at is embodied in effective teaching and learning. That i testing within the natural confines of the classroom, as part of the natural teaching process, which is honoured by good teachers as part of their attempt to draw children on i to different grades in the five-to-14 curriculum.
Externally set tests mean that time is being taken from t aching during the first two years of secondary school. I reiterate my concern because we have seen a dip in pupil performance in S1 and S2. Rather than addressing that important matter, the Government seek to introduce bureaucratic external testing of young people. It is artificial, and it eats up valuable and sometimes limited time for teaching and learning.
If compulsory tests are introduced, children in secondary schools in Scotland will be tested in their first, cond, fourth, fifth and sixth years. They will be the most tested young people in Europe. Such testing will not add anything to the quality of teaching in the classroom, or to Vie quality of information that is available to parents.
If the Government genuinely believe in parental choice, they must give parents the right, explicitly stated, to withdraw their children from the testing that I have described. It is not enough for the Minister to say, "If parents do not want their children to do it, they can withdraw." It must be explicitly stated in the Bill that parents have that right. Otherwise, we shall be back to the conflicts when the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) tried to introduce compulsory testing in primary schools. Children who will be going to secondary school in a few weeks' time are the same children whose parents withdrew them from compulsory testing in primary schools.
Compulsory testing is at odds with parents' requests, and with the genesis of the five-to-14 curriculum. Furthermore, it covers only three aspects of the curriculum. What will happen to the other aspects that are not being tested, bearing in mind the time that will be lost in teaching those subjects?
If the Government were genuine about trying to improve performance in S1 and S2, they would examine the problems experienced by children who had been tested in primary school. A significant number of children are tested up to level D under the five-to-14 curriculum at primary school, so when they go to secondary school they experience a fallow period. The Government would do better to consider such details and issues affecting overload, teachers and the resources available to produce materials to ensure that five-to-14 testing is upgraded for secondary schools, because many of the test materials used are the same as those used in primary schools.
Compulsory testing goes against the advice of educationists. It is an ideological move to reintroduce the 11-plus and streaming. The Minister has told us that Her Majesty's inspectorate is to conduct an examination of streaming. Why is he so determined to prejudge that examination?
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State suggested that to attempt to educate a pupil without testing is as absurd as running a business without keeping accounts. That is a fallacious analogy. The Minister is seeking to introduce a system of testing whereby schools would be run by external auditors.
Furthermore, the Government have not advanced convincing arguments about the Scottish Qualifications Authority. We have not had any advice about what the tests are likely to cost. In the first two years, 366,000 tests could be set. It is ludicrous that the Government have not sought to give us information on this, which suggests that the whole proposal has been ill thought out.
The amendments seek to introduce a critical element of parental involvement. They seek to ensure that we get rid of a system that does not support the best ethos of Scottish education, and they seek to put in context a move that has been introduced by the Government for the most spurious of reasons.
The Government complain that there has not been sufficient testing in S1 and S2, but fail to acknowledge that testing as such could have been available only from August 1994. The figures from which they work are outdated, and they fail to take into account the need to re-evaluate bands A to D in the five-to-14 curriculum.
I urge the House to support the amendments. They are commonsense amendments, that would strike a chord with Scotland's parents, teachers and educationists.

Mr. Welsh: I shall speak to amendment No. 9, because I believe that consultation is of the essence.
The Government must listen to the views of those most affected by their proposals. The amendment says that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State
shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers.
Given the controversy, opposition and fears about testing, there must be some mechanism to express genuine consumer reaction. That is the purpose of amendment No. 9.
Previous votes proved the Labour party wrong on three counts: first, the voucher amendments were debated on Report; secondly, the Government won easily—so two predictions fall—and, finally, Labour does not propose to divide the House on amendment No. 4. If it does not do so, there is always the Scottish National party to force the issue.
The Government's novel approach to secondary testing has been a recent addition to the Bill, and therefore requires maximum scrutiny by us. It is a pity that it has not been scrutinised more. The Labour and Conservative parties seem to be rushing the Bill through. That, too, is a pity, because it is so important that it requires the widest scrutiny.
Those who followed the Committee stage of the Bill will have witnessed the Government's repeated failure to address the many concerns of parents and professionals. I hope that the Minister will respond more positively, now or on Third Reading. His cavalier response to those genuinely expressed concerns was disturbing.
Those who followed the Committee stage will also have witnessed quite unprecedented collusion between the Front Benches. That disgraceful lack of effective opposition was highlighted in the attempt to rush through the debate on testing, and it has been replicated now.

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman's speeches took up about a fifth of the column space in Hansard that was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and other Labour Members on the Committee. An objective reader of Hansard will realise who fought the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating not the Committee stage but a particular amendment and those associated with it.

Mr. Welsh: My speeches fitted the task. I was outnumbered 18 to one on the Committee, which left me vulnerable to such nonsense—and Labour nonsense it surely is.
The most galling feature of the Bill is that Tory Members from English constituencies will decide whether 120,000 Scottish S1 and S2 pupils are to be tested under the new system proposed by the Government. Only one of the silent three Tory Members who served on the Committee is present, although I dare say that the other two will vote. They do not understand the intricacies of


the issue, but their voices will be heard above those of parents and teachers in Scotland—people with a deep knowledge and experience of the Scottish system. The views of Scottish Members and Scottish teachers and parents will come to naught in the face of the unquestioning and obedient Tory Lobby fodder. Who knows, the promised Government defeat might be delivered by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), but we shall not hold our breath.
I wish to raise a number of issues, but I shall limit my remarks to a small selection of concerns on which I should like a response from the Minister. Will he give some assurances about the logistics of the proposed S1 and S2 tests? About 360,000 examination papers and the associated curriculum must be in place in a little over a year—a year supposedly devoted to consultation on issues relating to testing materials and the development of the curriculum.
Does the hon. Gentleman honestly expect the House to believe that this is not a rushed project? He expects us to believe that he is allocating sufficient time for the development of the new S1 and S2 test. It cannot be over-emphasised that this new system is being loaded on a teaching profession which already works under the burden of previous Government-imposed burdens.
In Committee, we were not given a satisfactory estimate of costs, because the Government have not decided the basis for the tests or the type of materials to be used. What element of local authority expenditure is to be sacrificed to pay for these tests?
If local councils are to pay the Scottish Qualifications Authority for tests, the money will have to come out of some local authority budget. Are the new tests the best value for money for our local authorities? The Minister is normally prone to use that phrase. I do not think they are, and education professionals in Scotland share my judgment. There are cost implications and logistical difficulties, for a brand new type of test. The introduction of a test that flies in the face of the accepted structure of the five-to-14 system constitutes an important change to Scottish education.
The Minister has given figures relating to the level of testing in S 1 and S2, but those figures take into account only a narrow definition of assessment. The Minister knows that teachers are constantly assessing pupils' achievement; to say otherwise is to insult teachers in Scotland. Any extension of formal testing in secondary schools should proceed according to the five-to-14 model rather than—as the Government now suggest—in complete opposition to it.
The Minister has not given us an adequate assurance about the position of primary school pupils who have reached band E in the five-to-14 test. He has not explained why we should move from a system in which pupils are tested as and when they are judged to have reached a standard allowing them to progress to the next level to a system involving an inflexible test on a fixed day. Although that is a fundamental tenet of what the Minister is suggesting, he has never explained the educational reasons for such a system, or how it can be delivered.
Previous tests were developed to meet pupils' needs. The Government's proposals, however, are contrary to the accepted system, and seem to have been designed simply to meet their own short-sighted, narrow political needs. The five-to-14 system was developed, with much care and concern, in conjunction with the teaching profession.
The Minister's proposal goes against that consensus: he is tearing up a well-worked compromise, and forcing through a new anglicised system that jars with the experience and advice of teachers.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Welsh: The Minister shakes his head, implying that he has not received such advice. I suggest that he has not spoken to many teachers; he certainly has not spoken to members of the Educational Institute of Scotland, because what I have said represents its stated view.
Amendment No. 4 would delete the provision for testing of secondary school pupils. For all the reasons that were given in Committee and have been given much more briefly today, it is important to halt the Government's damaging proposal and to leave time for the development of the five-to-14 system within S 1 and S2. The Scottish National party will support the amendment.
Amendment No. 6 introduces a more explicit statement of parental choice, which would guarantee that only children whose parents want them to take tests must do so. Rather than allowing ignorance of rights to result in some children's taking the tests, the amendment requires explicit action from parents who want their children to take them. We support it as well.
Amendment No. 9, which I tabled, simply highlights the lack of consultation involved in the drafting of this part of the Bill. The test proposal was foisted on us in Committee; it is disgraceful that the views of the professionals were not properly sought before the Bill was introduced. The amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for consultation with relevant bodies. In the course of such consultation, it would become apparent to the Government how deeply flawed and badly thought out their present proposal is—but the important thing is for the consultation to take place.
I urge the House to support the amendments, for the sake of the integrated five-to-14 system and to defend Scottish education from yet another politically motivated Tory innovation.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I was struck by the way in which clause 32 was introduced at the last minute. The Minister behaved rather like the Spartans, who, when about to die, stayed behind their shields before perishing in a hail of arrows from their enemies. Similarly, determined to retain all their ideologies as they fought to the death, the Government introduced this last crazy measure, not only to introduce testing in S I and S2 as a substitute for the 11-plus, but to introduce external testing in secondary schools.
That shows how out of touch the Government are with the people of Scotland. This is not about education, but about ideology: in a final effort before going into their death throes, the Government have gathered all their crazy ideology into an education Bill. I am glad they have, because the people of Scotland will have even more reason to vote them out of office when they have the chance.
The Minister consistently said that the measure concerned the level of testing in S1 and S2, and named one or two Scottish regions where he considered the level very low. He did not recognise that the real problem was persuading the teaching profession that resources and


materials would be made available to make it relevant to use the five-to-14 testing and assessment structures worked out by the Government, the profession and Scottish schools over the past decade.
It seems that the Minister is putting down a marker to the English constituencies where he will have to plead for a job after he is rejected by the Scottish people. This is not anglicised ideology, but ill-thought-out ideology, wherever it is found—on whichever side of the border, and in whichever country. The Government will say that they tried to introduce it in Scotland. Admittedly, the Minister will probably add that he failed, but he will say that he did at least try.
The Government's proposal is not about educational development, or the philosophy of assessment papers in the five-to-14 curriculum. I am not sure whether the Minister has read and considered them in the context of his silly plan for external testing. The Minister of State, Scottish Office, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who was responsible for developing the assessment philosophy for some time, clearly read and understood the papers, because he turned against the compulsory testing that the present Secretary of State for Scotland tried to introduce. If this Minister had read them, he would realise that there was a good deal that people could be persuaded to introduce in terms of assessment.
Everyone recognises the need for a level A in five-to-14 assessment, to stretch pupils in S1 and S2 who have not yet reached that level. The Minister, however, has set up an external process of "setting". He said in Committee that there would be no streaming, but that there would be setting.
Taking three different subjects, testing pupils and trying to "set" them according to three different responses, however, along with the difficulty of timetabling in a secondary school, will result in de facto streaming. If an attempt is made to set an external test in three different subjects for pupils who have reached a particular level when there is a timetabling difficulty, groups of pupils will constantly be streamed into lower sets, and will be deprived of educational opportunities.
That is worse than pandering to the philosophy that I have heard in some secondary staffrooms. Some teachers feel that the less able kids get under the feet of the bright ones in senior secondary schools, and would prefer them to be removed from classes by some means or other. It is worse because it allows an external agency to come into schools and put pupils into separate categories without giving teachers a chance to assess them. I deprecate that philosophy, which still exists in some senior secondary schools in Scotland which have turned into comprehensives, but I deprecate even more the idea that an external agency will come in and do the setting, which will lead to streaming.
As we heard in Committee, some people applauded this initiative, comparing it with their experiences of the old weeding-out process. That is what the 11-plus was about—weeding out the children who were seen to be less able, and getting them out from under the feet of those who were seen to be brighter. We used to do that by sending them to junior secondary schools, and sending the brighter ones to senior secondary schools.
As hon. Members said in Committee, the process was deeply flawed: many who went to junior secondary schools found their way back into education at a higher level, and proved that they were as bright as those who had secured senior secondary places and passed the 11-plus. That will be repeated in Scotland if the Government ever have a chance to implement this scheme. Pupils will be weeded out and put into lower sets and streams, and will have to fight their way back into adequate education.
I am thinking of every parent in Scotland, not just those in less well-off communities who may not have academic achievements themselves. The Government's proposals do not concern only them; they concern every middle-class home that faces the possibility that an external agency will mark down children of 12 or 13 as failures, weeding them out of the higher sets and higher streams in secondary schools and depriving them of educational opportunities.
I ask the House to reject this mad idea, and I ask parents to resist testing if the Government try to implement it—just as a trial run, to flex their muscles in preparation for the opportunity to reject this Government, which will come within a year.

Mr. Wallace: On Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Scotland produced the idea of secondary testing in S1 and S2 out of a hat. It was clear, as the debate progressed and, in particular, after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) had asked him about parental choice, that the policy had never been thought through in any great detail. It almost seemed to develop as the debate progressed.
I have the horrible feeling that we have been here before. As the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said, it was the Secretary of State who, when he was a junior Minister with responsibility for education, caused chaos in classrooms through his insistence on external testing. It took all the diplomatic skills of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), when he took over the reins of junior Minister with responsibility for education, to—

Mr. Salmond: Clear up the mess.

Mr. Wallace: To clear up the mess.
The development of assessment by teachers, of a pupil-oriented system, of where testing can be used, of a bank of tests, of close consultation with the profession and of testing to evaluate assessments, is envied in many other parts of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State wants, however, to put the clock back and to re-sow the seeds of compulsory testing and all the disruption that that caused.
The objection is to the rigid imposition of testing. As the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) has said, there is no bank of tests. We have not been told what the cost is. If the proposal had been in the Bill from the outset, its financial memorandum would have told us what the cost would be, but, as it was introduced by way of an amendment in Committee, we do not know the cost or where the local authorities can find resources to fund the policy.
Many people are concerned that testing early in the secondary lifetime of a young person could reintroduce the 11-plus by the back door. I was possibly in the last year that sat the 11-plus, but it damaged generations of young Scots, who were branded at a relatively young age. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said, some managed to recover, but many were classified as having failed at that age, and never quite made their way back.
The important part of amendment No. 6 is that it will ensure that any testing would require the written consent or request of parents and guardians. When the matter was debated on Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said:
the SQA will be supplying exams at standard grade and higher grade. It is up to parents, teachers and pupils whether pupils sit those exams. It will be the same for new national exams set by the SQA at S1 and S2."—[Official Report, 4 June 1996; Vol. 278, c. 444.]
He said, "parents, teachers and pupils". Perhaps when he replies to the debate, he will confirm either that testing will take place only if teachers, parents and pupils all agree that it should take place, or that he is retreating from that. If he can give that assurance, that might put testing in a different light.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As I said repeatedly in Committee, it is up to parents to decide whether their child sits the test. Parents can consult anyone they want to consult. It could be the pupil, the teacher or the child's granny, for that matter. It is the parents' decision.

Mr. Wallace: That being the case, I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting amendment No. 6. My hon. Friends believe that the Government's proposal is potentially a Trojan horse, which could damage young people. Therefore, we believe it would be much better if the Government dealt with other important issues, such as the proper development of the five-to-14 curriculum in S1 and S2, which is widely accepted as not having been properly progressed. It might be better if that were the focus of the Government's attention, rather than the wish to proceed with potentially dangerous and rigid compulsory testing, as proposed in the clause that they added in Committee.

Mr. Salmond: In rising to support all three of the amendments in this group, I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that I could do a lot worse than to start with the arguments of the magnum opus—the excellent 90-minute speech in Committee made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who went through the debate issue by issue, and discussed the impact of compulsory testing on parents and teachers. [Interruption.] I can do that, if hon. Members want. My hon. Friend demonstrated how the Minister's proposals were rejected by every person with an interest in the vast majority of Scottish opinion.
This debate exemplifies the Government's problems with Scottish society. Professional and parental opinion is firmly against the Minister's proposals on this issue, yet those expressions of opinion are treated with total contempt. When my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East mentioned the Educational Institute of Scotland, I saw the Minister roll his eyes and look up to the ceiling,

as if he could just dismiss that professional organisation's opinions as below consideration in his evaluation.
When they came to see me to discuss these measures, EIS members were divided on the Minister's political future. None of them wanted him to be the Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland, but some were worried that, if he lost his seat, he might return to the profession. There is no excuse for the Minister treating with such contempt the expressions of both parental and professional opinion on these matters. That goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Conservative party's approach to Scottish legislation and to wider Scottish society.
The Conservative party is exercised by the view that many people in Scotland, including its supporters, regard it as anti-Scottish, so it has embarked on a series of publicity and public relations stunts to try to massage back a Scottish image. It has a new logo, and it has returned the Stone of Destiny. It is trying to emphasise the party's Scottish credentials at every opportunity, but, on the issue of Scottish education, it treats with contempt the expressions of opinion from Scotland. Eighty per cent. of people involved in the consultation process say that the Conservative party is going in the wrong direction, but that is swept aside by the Minister in his approach.
On the legislative process, during this debate there have never been more than six Conservative Members in the House. There are currently five. Every one of them is on the payroll vote. The Conservative party cannot even bother to bring its members in to debate the issues, which it knows are regarded with derision and opposition in Scottish society. It then wonders why so many people in Scotland, including its supporters, regard it as anti-Scottish in its approach to legislation and to politics.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East when he said that this was not an anglicisation process. I think the Secretary of State has embarked on such a process. The same point has been made by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell). The essence of the Secretary of State's approach to Scottish education has been to try to run down its integrated character and to introduce the social divisiveness and fragmentation that exists in the education system south of the border.

Mr. Connarty: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many other countries still hold to the mythology that people should be divided at an early age into those who will be technocrats and those who will be academics? It is flawed in those countries, as it is when applied in the UK.

Mr. Salmond: I fully accept that point, but I am dealing with the motivation of the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I had discussions a long time ago. He has regarded Scottish education and the integrated nature of Scottish education as a bulwark against his party's interest in Scotland. He regards the facts that 97 per cent. of Scottish children go to comprehensive schools and Scottish education does not have social divisiveness in the system as an obstacle to the Conservative party's political progress in Scotland. That is why he takes as his model what has happened south of the border, with the fragmented state of education there, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East and the hon. Member for Monklands, East were right to point to an anglicisation process.
If the Under-Secretaryof State wants to know why his party is so poorly regarded in Scotland, and why it is thought of as anti-Scottish, he needs to reflect no further than on his attitude towards the submissions made by professional and parental organisations on this measure, and on the contempt with which he and his colleagues have treated this part of Scottish legislation this night, even to the extent of refusing to take an intervention from the leader of the Liberal party in Scotland—the Minister is clock-watching, worried that the issue of ministerial salaries will not be debated according to the timetable set by the Whips. That shows the extent of the Minister's contempt for Scottish education, and as long as he holds it in contempt, the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people will hold him and his party in contempt.

Mr. Davidson: There is a great deal to be said for testing and assessment in S1 and S2 and for devising measures to assess the value that is added by individual schools as part of a thorough system of measurement and assessment that will analyse weaknesses and support pupils and schools. In view of that, why is it that so much of Scottish opinion is so strongly hostile to the Government's proposals? The simple answer is that the Scottish people do not trust the Tories on education. Everything that is propagated by the Government is treated with suspicion, if not derision, because people assume that there is a hidden agenda that runs counter to the general trend of Scottish opinion.
The measure is designed to introduce CCT—compulsory competitive testing—into Scottish education. It is about setting school against school and pupil against pupil. It is about not diagnosis and assistance but passing and failing. It is about assessing the output of primary schools, setting one against the other, to see which school has managed to produce the most passes at secondary level. It measures one secondary school against another to see the percentage of the intake with higher passes at S1 and S2.
As hon. Members have said, the measure is about separating pupils into the sheep and the goats—those on whom the school system should be encouraged to spend more time and effort and those whom it should decide simply to leave by the wayside, the people who will be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in our future system. That is the complete opposite of the way in which the vast majority of people view the Scottish education system and believe that it should develop, and that is why Scottish opinion is so hostile to the Government's proposals.
I have some questions about compulsion and I should be grateful if the Minister could find time to answer them. I understand that he is to give education authorities a specific statutory duty to conduct tests in S1 and S2. The same would apply to school boards and presumably to the boards of opted-out schools. How does he square that with the idea that opting out gives schools greater flexibility and freedom? Would opted-out schools not have to participate in S1 and S2 tests? If they have to participate in those tests, their position is no different from that of any other school in Scotland.
What about the right of individual members of staff to choose? I know where I stand on the issue of whether staff should have the right to choose whether to participate

in those tests, but it will be valuable to hear the Government's stand. The Minister seemed to suggest, although I may have misunderstood him, that parents would not be compelled to make their youngsters participate in the tests. In that case, does the Minister intend to have an opt-in or an opt-out procedure or will the child simply participate unless the parents take the child away from the school on the day of the tests? Scottish parents need to know exactly how that would operate.
It seems that we are being given the opportunity to have referendums in Scotland on education. How many Scottish parents were prepared to allow their children to participate in testing during the Government's previous attempts to have compulsory competitive testing for primary pupils? I know the answer to that because at that time I was the chair of education in Strathclyde. It is, not a lot. The vast majority of parents chose to withdraw their children from compulsory competitive testing in the primary sector and I think that they will choose to do the same in the secondary sector. When that happens, I hope that the Government will not back away from their measure. Let us have it as a referendum. Introduce the tests this year and measure the success of the Government's policy by the number of parents who are prepared to allow their children to be tested when they are given a free choice. The result will be an indictment of the Government and will show that people in Scotland have no faith in them. It will be a clear measure of the way in which unionism in the House is being operated by the Government in a way that is detrimental to Scotland's interests, to Scottish education and to the Union itself.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In Committee, I described in detail the reasons why my hon. Friends and I consider it vital for measures to be taken as soon as possible to ensure that S1 and S2 pupils and their parents are able to benefit from the introduction of national tests. I shall repeat the main reasons for clause 32.
Since 1994, education authorities have failed to ensure that national tests are carried out in secondary schools, despite having agreed to conduct them. Pupils who progress through primary school and receive regular information on the basis of nationally set tests lose access to that as soon as they move to secondary school. Testing early in S1 and towards the end of the time in S2 would enable information to be made available on the progress that had been made during those two vital years of a pupil's formal education.
National testing in primary schools has proved successful and has been welcomed by pupils, parents and teachers. It is quite unacceptable for education authorities to be allowed to continue to deny parents and children those key benefits at such an important stage in a child's education.
The acceptance of amendment No. 6 would mean that each year the parents or guardians of children in S1 or S2 would have to submit in writing a request for their children to sit a national test. That would place an unnecessary burden on parents and guardians and on the education authorities, which would have to divert resources to that exercise. I think that the vast majority of parents would want to have their children tested and to have access to the results and to the teacher's informed


judgment about the next appropriate steps in the child's educational development. In our primary schools, where 90 per cent. of children are being tested at one of the five-to-14 attainment levels, withdrawals are so rare that education authorities have never drawn them to our attention.
Our position on parental choice is perfectly clear, workable and straightforward. Parents who do not wish their child to participate in national tests in S1 and S2 are free to withdraw that child. We envisage that that would be done by the simple expedient of the parents making their wishes clear in writing to the head of the school. I cannot support the introduction of what would be a completely unnecessary burden on parents and education authorities, a burden that is designed to frustrate the Government's plans to spread the benefits of national testing to secondary schools.
On amendment No. 9, I have made it abundantly clear in Committee and elsewhere that I intend to consult widely and in depth before introducing the proposed regulations and details of the test arrangements. I fail to see why it is necessary to include in statute reference to bodies which I shall involve in that exercise as a matter of course. The House has my assurance on that, and I ask it to oppose the amendments.

Mrs. Liddell: I regret that the Minister has failed to take account of the many points that were raised in the debate. His argument against amendment No. 6 is bizarre in the extreme and totally spurious. He said that it would place an unnecessary burden on parents. The burden that he is putting on parents is their right to withdraw their children from testing. His response to the speech by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the role of parents, teachers and pupils withdrawing a child from testing was also bizarre. Apparently anyone, including the pupil, can withdraw a child from the tests.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady was obviously talking to her hon. Friend, which is what she has been doing for most of the debate. I said that it was up to the parent to decide whether to withdraw a child but that, as always, the parent was at liberty to consult anyone. The final decision belongs to parents. That is what I said, and the hon. Lady does me a disservice by misquoting me.

Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up, because I did misunderstand him. I heard him say that grannies could be involved as well.
The Minister has failed to take into account some key issues about the progress of testing in primary schools, and he has repeatedly failed to take into account the fact that there is assessment up to band D in primary schools. One major reason for many children not being tested in S1 and S2 under current arrangements is that they have already been tested to that level in primary school. He also failed to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), who pointed out the impact that failure can have on a child.
We have a very good education system in Scotland, but one of our disadvantages—which has built up over time—is that we do not inculcate self-confidence in our young people. What possible chance do we have to create a climate of achievement when we build failure into the system at a time when children should be instilled with

the confidence to go forward with their secondary education and to feel that they had an opportunity to achieve vocationally and academically?
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) pointed out that one of our main criticisms of the Government is that the people of Scotland do not trust the Tories with Scottish education. We have debated whether there is anglicisation of Scottish education. I think that there is. Even the timing of this amendment demonstrates that, as it was introduced at exactly the same time as the Secretary of State for Education and Employment introduced proposals for England and Wales. The Prime Minister said that he wanted a grammar school in every town. I contend that the Minister, who is responsible for education in Scotland, wants a senior secondary in every town.
We have had an interesting debate. I regret that the Minister has not dealt with the points that we made. Therefore, we shall press amendment No. 4 to a Division.
We have also had an interesting diversion today by hon. Members from the Scottish National party, one of which reminded me of the words of that great parliamentarian, Lord Healey. Like him, I now know what it feels like to be savaged by a dead sheep. It is very interesting that SNP Members have shown such great interest in attacking the Labour party and Labour's plans for putting Scottish education back where it belongs.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 291.

Division No. 186]
[6.51 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chisholm, Malcolm


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Coffey, Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Battle, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart
Corston, Jean


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cousins, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Roseanna


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davidson, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Denham, John


Byers, Stephen
Dewar, Donald


Callaghan, Jim
Dixon, Don


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Frank


Campbell, Mercies (Fife NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell-Savours, D N
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Canavan, Dennis
Eagle, Ms Angela


Cann, Jamie
Eastham, Ken


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Etherington, Bill


Chidgey, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)






Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Macdonald, Calum


Fatchett, Derek
McFall, John


Faulds, Andrew
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Don (Bath)
MacShane, Denis


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Madden, Max


Galbraith, Sam
Maddock, Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


Gerrard, Neil
Martlew, Eric


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michael, Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gordon, Mildred
Milburn, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Miller, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Grocott, Bruce
Morley, Elliot


Gunnell, John
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hain, Peter
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Hardy, Peter
Mullin, Chris


Harvey, Nick
Murphy, Paul


Heppell, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hodge, Margaret
Olner, Bill


Hoey, Kate
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Illsley, Eric
Purchase, Ken


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Randall, Stuart


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Rendel, David


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môm)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jowell, Tessa
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S
Salmond, Alex


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Simpson, Alan


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Ian
Stevenson, George





Stott, Roger
Wareing, Robert N


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Watson, Mike


Straw, Jack
Welsh, Andrew


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wilson, Brian


Timms, Stephen
Winnick, David


Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Touhig, Don
Worthington, Tony


Trickett, Jon
Wray, Jimmy


Turner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Tyler, Paul
Young, David


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Congdon, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cran, James


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Duncan, Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Bob


Beresford, Sir Paul
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Elletson, Harold


Booth, Hartley
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fabricant, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Sir Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forth, Eric


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Budgen, Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Burns, Simon
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Peter
Gallie, Phil


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gill, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Gillan, Cheryl


Carttiss, Michael
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Cash, William
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Channon, Fit Hon Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gorst, Sir John


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael






Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hicks, Sir Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwirym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sims, Sir Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Major, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David





Trend, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Trotter, Neville
Whittingdale, John


Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David



Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Derek Conway and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 18, line 22, at end insert

'; but before making such regulations he shall consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities and teachers.'.—[Mr. Welsh.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 276

Division No. 187]
[7.04 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Canavan, Dennis
Rendel, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Chidgey, David
Skinner, Dennis


Dafis, Cynog
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Welsh, Andrew


Kirkwood, Archy



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. Alex Salmond and


Maclennan, Robert
Ms Roseanna Cunningham.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brandreth, Gyles


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Ashby, David
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butler, Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bates, Michael
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Batiste, Spencer
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendal, Vivian
Cash, William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Churchill, Mr


Booth, Hartley
Clappison, James


Boswell, Tim
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coe, Sebastian






Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Legg, Barry


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Madel, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony


Fry, Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gallie, Phil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gill, Christopher
Merchant Piers


Gillan, Cheryl
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorst, Sir John
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steve


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannan, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Paice, James


Hawkins, Nek
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Sir Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Richards, Rod


Horam, John
Riddick, Graham


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)





Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Thomason, Roy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sackville, Tom
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott Ftt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Shersby, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Soames, Nicholas
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Speed, Sir Keith
Waller, Gary


Spencer, Sir Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Sr Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whitney, Ray


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stewart Allan
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Sweeney, Walter
Wood, Timothy


Sykes, John
Yeo, Tim



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived. Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The Bill is all about choice, quality and diversity—the themes at the heart of all that we do in Scottish education. Scottish young people deserve only the best. The Bill helps give them that, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Liddell: The Bill is about anything but choice. It is about inflicting nursery vouchers on pre-five education in Scotland. It will not guarantee nursery places for children in Scotland who deserve the best nursery education. Nor will it guarantee quality. Indeed, there is a real danger that it will dilute the quality of nursery education in Scotland. I can make a commitment that, whenever Labour forms a Government, nursery vouchers will be abolished in Scotland. What is more, we will abandon the last-minute proposals for the compulsory testing of schools.
It is regrettable that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not seen fit to join us this evening when he is inflicting on Scotland yet more legislation that is out of tune with Scottish education and will do nothing to advance the cause of the children of Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: Parts of the Bill are welcome. The creation of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the method of dealing with placing requests and the provisions relating to school boards have commanded widespread support. However, my hon. Friends and I cannot support the Bill on Third Reading because it has at its heart the alien concept of nursery vouchers, which is not wanted by the vast majority of the Scottish people—and certainly not by Scottish Members of Parliament.
It is interesting that the Minister refused to give way to me during the debate on amendment No. 10, which stood in my name. It was an attempt to get quality control and a complaints mechanism into the vouchers scheme. The Minister described my amendment and those grouped with it as wrecking amendments. That shows what the Government are proposing. The Minister's suggestion that a proposal to ensure quality would wreck the nursery vouchers scheme tells us all that we need to know about that scheme. We shall, therefore, vote against the Bill.

Mr. Welsh: I note a sudden interest—which was not apparent earlier—in the Scottish education system. We have also witnessed the unique spectacle of the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson rushing through their speeches so fast that they sounded like Pinky and Perky.
I shall not respond to the rather sheepish attempt at malice by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) except to say that the Labour party has been well and truly found out in the Bill. I should also tell the hon. Lady that a brass neck is no cover for a red face. The Bill fundamentally affects the Scottish education system. That is not a small matter; it is very important to Scotland and it is quite disgraceful that the Bill is being rushed through in such a fashion. If the Government have their way, the Bill will be of major importance in shaping and setting the future course of the education system in Scotland. It should have been scrutinised, questioned and opposed at every opportunity. Instead, for other reasons, the Conservative and Labour parties are rushing it through.
Nursery vouchers are simply socially divisive and inadequately funded in the Bill. They are objectively opposed by the vast majority of Scottish people, yet once again their views will be swept aside when we vote. Tory dogma is introducing an alien element into Scottish education, and market forces where they simply should not be. There is none of the parental choice of which the Minister has been boasting. When parents were consulted, they totally rejected the Government's proposals. The Minister's idea of consultation is to ask for views and then simply ignore them when they disagree with his own political bias. The Scottish National party view is quite clear: nursery education should slot in as a natural part of the Scottish national school system, thus guaranteeing quality, stability, standards and consistency of provision.
The education system is known and trusted by parents throughout Scotland, and we should be playing to its strengths by having a trained, graduate, professional work force and, most important, a broad educational provision that is open to all Scottish children. The Government are introducing some English ideas. I do not want the divided, fragmented English system ever to be visited on Scotland. What the Minister proposes goes against the grain of the Scottish people and the five-to-14 programme. The Bill is

yet another example of rushed, botched legislation that puts extra burdens on the teaching profession. Teachers will cope with the measures, but they deserve better. The Bill should have been better thought out and better planned, with consultation.
There is a consensus on education in Scotland, but it is one of which the Government are not part. I greatly regret that they have not listened to Scottish people, Scottish parents or Scottish educationists. The Bill is quite simply a mistake.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 255.

Division No. 188]
[7.21 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Conway, Derek


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Ashby, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Elletson, Harold


Body, Sir Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ield)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Faber, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fabricant, Michael


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bright, Sir Graham
Forth, Eric


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Browning, Mrs Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butcher, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorst, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Coe, Sebastian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John






Hargreaves, Andrew
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Sir Robert
Pickles, Eric


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sr Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Sir Roger


Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Skeet Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Sproat Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, Sir David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant Piers
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Michael Bates.


Willetts, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Donohoe, Brian H


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dowd, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Ms Angela


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Etherington, Bill


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Austin-Walker, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George



Bennett, Andrew F
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joe
Galbraith, Sam


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Berry, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Betts, Clive
Garrett, John


Blunkett, David
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Godsiff, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Stephen
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hall, Mike


Chidgey, David
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hardy, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Margaret


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coffey, Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Corston, Jean
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Ingram, Adam


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Janner, Greville


Denham, John
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)






Jowell, Tessa
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Randall, Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Rendel, David


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Livingstone, Ken
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Salmond, Alex


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCartney, Ian
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McFall, John
Simpson, Alan


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


MacShane, Denis
Spearing, Nigel


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Madden, Max
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maddock, Diana
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack



Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Milburn, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Touhig, Don


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trickett Jon


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wallace, James


Mudie, George
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Welsh, Andrew


O'Hara, Edward
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, Bill
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Parry, Robert
Wise, Audrey


Pearson, Ian
Worthington, Tony


Pendry, Tom
Wray, Jimmy


Pickthall, Colin
Wright, Dr Tony


Pike, Peter L
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pope, Greg



Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

CONSTITUTION, FUNCTIONS AND MEMBERSHIP OF DEER COMMISSION FOR SCOTLAND

Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, after 'deer', insert—
'(aa) have regard to the desirability of preserving freedom of access to the countryside.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 38.

No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 38.

Mr. McFall: I shall be brief because I can see that many hon. Members are interested in this Bill. It contains a provision against night shooting, but I have a feeling tonight that I may not be safe in the Chamber as a result of that.
Amendment No. I deals with freedom of access where outdoor groups in Scotland contribute much to the highlands and islands economy—indeed, they contribute more than the red deer sports centres. Their interests are neglected and sometimes obstructed by landowners and red deer sports centres, and the amendment would maintain access.
We debated amendment No. 9 at great length in Committee and elsewhere. The wording of the clause was changed in the other place and, despite five years of consensus, an amendment moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch ensured that a third of the new Deer Commission for Scotland would comprise sporting interests. In a letter from WWF Scotland, Simon Pepper, head of operations, said:
In long and tortuous discussions with civil servants and with Lord Lindsay over the last few days, we have now secured their verbal but very clear and specific confirmation that the intention of the clause is indeed to provide 'traditional sporting estate interests' with a guaranteed representation of a third of the new Commission.
That destroys at a stroke the consensus about the need for a new Bill to replace the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, which did not cater for the issue of red deer in Scotland. When that Act was passed, there were some 150,000 red deer; the latest estimate is that there are more than 300,000. A consensual approach is thus needed, because the system is not working.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Has my hon. Friend read about the proposal to introduce the wolf to the isle of Rum? Does he believe that it is worth exploring the reintroduction of the deer's natural predator to Scotland, rather than shooting those animals?

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I should be straying out of order if I pursued it. There has been interest in that, but we must take social


and environmental considerations into account. We shall have to discuss the matter on a future date, however. I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are nodding vigorously.
The WWF has 20 voluntary groups in the highlands and islands, including crofters, the John Muir Society and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, which are on its side in this matter. The Government have let down the people of the highlands and islands and those groups by accepting that naked amendment in the other place. The voice of the people and of those groups must be listened to. As the Government have not done that and have broken their promise, we shall press the issue vigorously.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Amendment No. 9, which stands in my name, relates directly to the controversy surrounding the proposed method of selecting members of the new Deer Commission for Scotland. Many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are pertinent to my remarks.
There is no doubt about the strength of our opposition to the Government's attempt to give one specific interest group a dominant and unrepresentative influence on the control and management of deer in Scotland. The amendment seeks to combat new subsection (3B)(c), which is an explicit attempt to ensure that a third of the commission's members represent the interests of deer managers.
What the Government mean by "deer managers" can no longer be in serious doubt. The Government introduced the subsection after consistent lobbying in the other place, led by Lord Pearson, which sought specifically to protect the traditional sporting estates' interests. Lord Lindsay's initial defiance crumbled as pressure was applied by his colleagues. Bit by bit, initial Government policy unravelled, and the result was a complete betrayal of the initial commitment that the commission would not be dominated by one sectional interest. Paragraph (c) must therefore be seen as the culmination of a cynical and systematic betrayal. In short, it is an attempt to protect the sporting lobby.
That preferential treatment is entirely without justification. Its effect is not in doubt. The WWF says:
Domination by the sporting interests in the 37 year history of the Red Deer Commission has been a crucial factor in the failure of the Commission to control deer numbers.
The concern that has grown about the proliferation of deer in Scotland is that it has been brought about by the very big landed interests that will now be built into the new Bill if the Government have their way. It is likely that they will thereby exactly replicate the mistakes that were made in the past.
First, the preferential treatment is insupportable in the face of the facts of the deer issue in Scotland. One of the key features of the new commission is that it now has responsibility for all species of deer. Figures produced by the WWF show that more deer now live in forests and woodlands throughout Scotland than on the open hills in the sporting estates—and, perhaps more tellingly, the proportion is rapidly increasing in that direction. More people are now employed in the management of deer in woodlands than on sporting estates. More deer are killed every year to protect crops and trees than for sport.
Is it not clear, to even the most fervent defender of the Bill as it stands, that to give pride of place in the new commission to an interest group that is declining in relative importance is to fly in the face of common sense?
Secondly, that preferential treatment completely wrecks the consensus that was so important to the originators of the Bill. I quote the words of Lord Lindsay:
If the balance of interests on the deer commission is reduced or in any way skewed so that it is less of a level balance across the different interests, the commission would be in danger of losing some of its credibility and legitimacy in the wider community in Scotland."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 16.]
We should ask the simple question: what has changed? If balance was so important then, why is it no longer of interest to the Government?
Thirdly, there is disbelief in the organisations involved in Scotland's natural heritage that sporting interests are now, at a time when they are in relative decline, given greater representation than they have been allowed at any time in the past 37 years. We must ask why.
May I suggest a possible answer to those questions? Is it just possible that, once again, the Government are putting their preferences before those of the wider community? We are witnessing favouritism on a grand scale.
Let me take an example. Damage to forestry caused by deer is estimated at £10 million per annum, a figure many times greater than the money brought in by sporting estates. Despite that, the failure to recognise the importance of forestry is clear from the blatant advancement of sporting interests to the exclusion of all others. The people of Scotland can only be confirmed in their belief that what is being promoted is the result of a quasi-aristocratic relationship, which has very little to do with real consultation and shows no desire to find an effective, lasting consensus among disparate interest groups.
In opposing paragraph (c), the Scottish National party is articulating what most of the interest groups involved in the issue believe. The following is a sample of the range of interests: the National Trust for Scotland, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust.
I tabled amendment No. 9 because I had concerns about amendment No. 3, in the name of Labour Members. Amendment No. 3 has in common with the Scottish National party amendment the desire to remove paragraph (c), so I welcome the fact that the Labour party is on board on this issue.
There are two problems with Labour's desire to remove the stipulation that the Secretary of State must
afford to such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests of persons concerned … an opportunity to suggest the name of any person … appropriate".
First, new subsection (3B)(a) provides the only effective check on the powers of the Secretary of State. Labour's amendment leaves those powers unfettered, which cannot be acceptable.
In an area as controversial as this, the removal of a guarantee that the Secretary of State will consider the views, opinions and compliance of all interested parties is


a deeply divisive step to take. Be in no doubt; the future success or otherwise of the new commission depends almost entirely on the maintenance of consensus and on the belief of all interested parties that they are being heard. A power of appointment without control becomes political patronage and serves only to demolish the broad alliance that it has taken so long to cement.
7.45 pm
Secondly, not only is the control of the Secretary of State important, but so is the issue of how to resolve the problems that surround the management of deer. In all the political wrangling, there remains the question how best to move our approach to deer management to a new level.
I firmly believe that, if we allow the whole range of views and evidence to be considered, the decisions reached will be fair and widely supported. By removing the statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to allow representations from all interested parties with regard to representation on the new commission, not only is the Secretary of State given unfettered power of appointment, but that is at the expense of the good will and consensus that were so painstakingly pieced together.
One or two concerns are being expressed informally by those who are perhaps not entirely au fait with the arguments raging about the proliferation of deer in Scotland. Indeed, I believe that, in some quarters, the Bill has been rather more informally called the Bill to increase the killing of Bambi. The fact is, deer cause an enormous amount of destruction in Scotland, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be talking specifically to the amendments. There will be a Third Reading debate, when a wider speech would be more appropriate.

Ms Cunningham: I conclude by saying that I intend to press amendment No. 9.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) concluded her remarks. In fact, if she had accepted the place offered to the Scottish National party on the Committee, she might have heard all these arguments put in Committee and we should not have been subjected to them once again tonight. However, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I shall be brief—and, unlike him, I shall indeed be brief.
The first amendment seeks to place a duty on the Deer Commission for Scotland to consider access to the countryside. One of the problems with stalking is that it sterilises the mountains while it is taking place. Not only does it sterilise them when the stalking is going on, but the landowners use it as an excuse to impose a blanket sterilisation to keep people off the mountains.
It would be much better if a system could be considered which would keep people off the mountains only when stalking was taking place. There is a sign on the road and the path up to Ben Starav down Glen Affric which tells one not to climb because stalking is in progress, and it is still there on a Sunday, when everyone knows that stalking cannot take place. Mr. Gordon-Duff-Pennington has kindly discussed that with me in private and said that he will look into it.
I hope that the deer commission will take that issue on board and pursue it further, to seek an amicable arrangement. Individuals should not go into the mountains when stalking is taking place, but the quid pro quo is that the landowners must ensure that their areas are opened up when stalking is not taking place.
I conclude by referring to amendment No. 3 and by quoting from The Herald. A letter to the paper stated:
That consensus was the result of compromise by all parties—not least the landowners' recognition of the legitimate concern of other bodies in relation to natural heritage.
The letter continued:
We consider the specific recommendations to the Secretary of State—that at least a third of the commission shall be persons having knowledge or experience of deer management".
That is a re-writing of history. The Government did not wish to have the amendment—it was forced on them by the landowning groups and by Lord Pearson. The letter concluded:
The proposal should not be seen as being about the promotion of landowning interests but as proper management by people with the required expertise.
The letter is signed by the Association of Deer Management Groups and by the Landowners Federation. The people with expertise are those who produced the problem in the first place—we are allowing those who created the problem to write the legislation to deal with the problem. They will be over-represented on the commission, which cannot be right.
This is an historic piece of legislation: it will be the last time that vested interests—the Scottish landowners and the hereditary interests—will write legislation in their own interests. From now on, they will have to queue up with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, have a cup of tea and a biscuit with the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is beginning to sound like a Third Reading speech.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I am concerned that we are still arguing about the membership of the Deer Commission for Scotland. As far as I am concerned, the two amendments are six of one and half a dozen of the other.
We went through this matter on Second Reading and in Committee. In clause 1, the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint nine to 12 members whom he considers appropriate, including those who represent the interests of persons and organisations concerned with deer management. It is important that we have people on the deer commission who know about deer management. In addition, many people in the highlands believe that it is important to have representation from agriculture, particularly hill farming.
The Bill includes crofting—although crofting is in parentheses, and it should not be, because it is a legitimate and particular interest. In fact, while I am talking about words in brackets, the next thing that the Secretary of State should do is get rid of the brackets round the word "Scotland", which appear in all such Bills. Perhaps the Secretary of State can think about that for the next Scottish Grand Committee.
Obviously and rightly, there is representation from forestry and woodland management, and from natural heritage. The Bill says that the Secretary of State should


appoint appropriate people, which I take to mean people who have a legitimate interest in, and a knowledge of, all the duties that the deer commission has to carry out, as spelt out in the Bill. We must look for a balanced membership.
In Committee, the Minister said that he wanted to create more flexibility. That flexibility is immediately lost by the inclusion of new subsection (3B). Under new subsection (3A), the Secretary of State can appoint from deer management organisations, including those with sporting interests. The turnover of estates with sporting activities is approximately £154 million, which is a considerable contribution to the economy.
It is irritating that there is all this hassle and argument, which can only be damaging to relationships. Why does the Minister put up with it? He is making matters worse by insisting on the inclusion of new subsection (3B), when the powers for a balanced commission are already in the Bill. As I said earlier, it is important that some members of the commission have a real knowledge of deer management. After all, that is the purpose of the commission and the Bill. Why make it more difficult with the inclusion of this unpopular new subsection (3B)? I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.

Mr. Brian Wilson: What we are discussing in amendment No. 3 is more fundamental to the future of democracy in this country than anything that we shall discuss later tonight.
I refer to the Second Reading of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill in the other place. Members of the House of Lords who have landowning interests in Scotland queued up to argue their vested interests under the guise of being parliamentarians. Of the eight speeches made from the Back Benches in support of the Bill, six Members found it necessary to declare a vested interest as a landowner. Baroness Robson of Kiddington commenced her speech as follows:
My Lords, before speaking I have to declare an interest as I am an owner of a deer forest in the western Highlands.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy commenced her speech as follows:
My Lords, I suppose that I have to declare an interest because, although I do not own a deer forest, my husband did own Mar Forest".
The Earl of Woolton commenced his speech as follows:
My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak today as a relative newcomer to the subject of deer management in Scotland, but now finding myself at the very centre of the issue as the owner of an estate in the Angus glens.
Lord Campbell of Croy stated:
I declare an interest. I and my son own a modest estate in northern Scotland where there are many roe.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch commenced his speech as follows:
My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest as the largely absentee owner of a west Highland sporting estate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 1995; Vol. 567, c. 835–49.]

Lord Burton is so arrogant that he did not even bother to declare an interest, but I assure hon. Members that he owns—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful in his use of language. I remind him that he should not be quoting directly from the other place unless it is a ministerial statement.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful, because I have finished. The Minister, the Earl of Lindsay, said that it is terribly important that the commission commands status and respect among all those who are likely to have an interest in the way that deer are managed and that it is not simply seen as the supporter of one particular interest group. That is exactly what has happened.
Those people had the power to argue their case in what is theoretically the highest debating chamber in the land, and they had their interests written into the Bill. There are no crofters along the corridor, there are no conservation groups along the corridor and there are no other vested interests that form themselves into groups to pass legislation in the House along the corridor—only the Scottish landowning fraternity has that privilege, and that must end.
No Member of the House of Lords is there as an elected right—if they stood for their local district council, they would be defeated, and many of them have indeed been defeated. They go into what is theoretically the highest debating chamber in the land and they legislate in their own interests. What is even more shameful is that the elected Members of this House—who have responsibility for the legislation—are not prepared to reverse what has been written into this naked piece of special pleading in the House of Lords. That is a scandal.
When the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is forgotten and when the rest of tonight's proceedings are forgotten, there will be a case for abolishing the hereditary principle in the House of Lords.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he is speaking to the amendment and not making a general speech.

Mr. Wilson: I am trying hard to stick to the amendment, but the case—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard—perhaps he could become a little more successful.

Mr. Wilson: The case for amendment No. 3 lies exclusively in the genesis of the amendment that was written into the Bill in the other place—and that must not happen again. It is an affront to a democratic society. It is a constitutional issue on which I would be happy to march the length and breadth of Scotland and Britain to argue. The hereditary principle is an affront to any self-respecting democracy.

8 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I shall refer first to the issue of access, raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). We recognize


the importance of access to the countryside. However, the Deer Commission for Scotland is concerned primarily with issues relating directly to deer. We do not consider it appropriate or necessary to create a primary function for the commission of having regard to preserving freedom of access to the countryside. The access issue is more relevant to the role of Scottish Natural Heritage arid it is currently being pursued through the access forum, which includes the Association of Deer Management Groups. I believe that that is the most appropriate way forward.
Much has been said about the amendments that were accepted in another place. I assure the House that they have not changed the Government's policy. The amendments were designed to clarify the Bill's provisions and to state the Government's intention more explicitly. Opposition Members claim that the appointments provision has damaged the consensus surrounding the Bill. However, the legislation before us today is based firmly on proposals submitted to us by the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. I pay tribute to the work that he has done in bringing all interested parties together around the table.
Consensus requires some flexibility on the part of each interest group. Opposition Members are focusing on one small part of the appointments provision in isolation. That does a great disservice to all those who have worked hard to secure the legislative changes necessary to provide for effective deer management in the future.
The commission, whatever its precise composition, will have to work within its new legal framework, which provides important new functions and duties. The commission's role is extended to cover all species of deer, and it will have a new function of furthering the sustainable management of wild deer. The Bill gives the commission important new powers to protect the natural heritage, while retaining the rights of farmers, crofters and foresters to protect crops and woodland. The Bill strengthens the commission's powers to promote voluntary control and agreements. Overall, it is a balanced measure, which contains something positive for all interests.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister confirm that, if the Bill is passed, it will give deer management interests—that is, the sporting interest—a larger proportion of places on the commission than they have enjoyed during its 37-year history? Why is the Minister doing that this year?

Mr. Robertson: The Bill gives deer management interests one third of the commission's membership, which means that the other two thirds will comprise other interest groups. By anyone's arithmetic, that constitutes a minority for the deer management interests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some organisations argued for a majority interest on the commission, or that all commission members should have knowledge or experience of deer management. We resisted that move.
The proposal of one third retains the balance with other interests. I have made it clear, as has my noble Friend Lord Lindsay, that the remaining two thirds of the commission will be appointed to cover all other interests. The provision accurately reflects the Government's intentions and it is now stated expressly in the Bill in order to remove any doubt.
The Bill's underlying strategy is the promotion of the voluntary principle. The commission must retain the confidence and co-operation of deer managers if it is to

exercise its new powers effectively. Without that confidence and co-operation, the deer commission would find it very difficult to carry out its day-to-day work. In order to ensure the continuing confidence of deer managers in the work of the commission, the Bill provides that a third of those appointed should be nominees of organisations representing the interests of deer managers. That ensures representation for those whose primary interest is deer.
We intend that provision to cover organisations that represent deer managers as one of their main concerns. Deer management includes the sporting interest, and organisations representing that interest will be included in that category. Those who manage deer, but whose primary interest is natural heritage or forestry, already have an alternative route for appointment to the commission.
As things stand at present, bodies such as the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the British Deer Society and the British Field Sports Society can be said to have representation of deer managers, including those with a sporting interest in deer, as a main concern. In the past, those bodies were considered eligible to nominate members to the commission. Taken together, the representation of nominees from those organisations under the new system would be broadly in line with what occurs under the present system. That is entirely reasonable, as they represent a group that is vital to the commission's work.
Opposition Members claim that the Government accepted the provisions only in response to vested interests. As I said before, the Government's strategy is the promotion of the voluntary principle. The commission must retain the confidence and co-operation of deer managers in order to be able to exercise its new powers effectively. We have amended the Bill in order to clarify our intentions and to improve it. The policy proposals made by the commission and accepted by the Government for inclusion in the legislation remain intact in the Bill before the House today. Therefore, I believe that the Bill deserves the full support of the House. I hope that Opposition Members will not press their amendments, but if they do, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them.

Mr. McFall: Given the Minister's unconvincing answers, we shall press amendment No. 3 to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 38.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 257.

Division No. 189]
[8.05 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell-Savours, D N






Canavan, Dennis
McAllion, John


Cann, Jamie
McAvoy, Thomas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Macdonald, Calum


Chisholm, Malcolm
McFall,John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
McKelvey, William


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McLeish, Henry


Coffey, Ann
McNamara, Kevin


Connarty, Michael
McWilliam, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Madden, Max


Corbett, Robin
Maddock, Diana


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Alice


Corston, Jean
Martlew, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Meacher, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meale, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dafis, Cynog
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Dalyell, Tam
Miller, Andrew


Darling, Alistair
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davidson, Ian
Morley, Elliot


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Dewar, Donald
Mudie, George


Dixon, Don
Mullin, Chris


Dobson, Frank
Olner, Bill


Donohoe, Brian H
Parry, Robert


Eagle, Ms Angela
Pike, Peter L


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Etherington, Bill
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Fatchett, Derek
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Faulds, Andrew
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Flynn, Paul
Quin, Ms Joyce


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Randall, Stuart


Foster, Don (Bath)
Reid, Dr John


Fyfe, Maria
Rendel, David


Galbraith, Sam
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Galloway, George
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Garrett, John
Rooker, Jeff


George, Bruce



Gerrard, Neil
Rooney, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A
Sedgemore, Brian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheerman, Barry


Gordon, Mildred
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Graham, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


Grant Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Gunnell, John
Spellar, John


Hain, Peter
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Hanson, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hardy, Peter
Stott, Roger


Harvey, Nick
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Tipping, Paddy


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Trickett, Jon


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Turner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Vaz, Keith


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wallace, James


Hutton, John
Walley, Ms Joan


Ingram, Adam
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Wicks, Malcolm


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Wilson, Brian


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Winnick, David


Jowell, Tessa
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Keen, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Khabra, Piara S
Wray, Jimmy


Kirkwood, Archy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lewis, Terry



Liddell, Mrs Helen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. John Cummings.


Lynne, Ms Liz






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Faber, David


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Fabricant, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Arbuthnot, James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sr Norman


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Fry, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gallie, Phil


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bates, Michael
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Batiste, Spencer
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bellingham, Henry
Gorst Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Body, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Booth, Hartley
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Hannam, Sir John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hawksley, Warren


Bright Sir Graham
Heald, Oliver


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hendry, Charles


Budgen, Nicholas
Hicks, Sir Robert


Burns, Simon
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Burt, Alistair
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Butcher, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Butler, Peter
Horam, John


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carttiss, Michael
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cash, William
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, Mr
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Jack, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Coe, Sebastian
Jessel, Toby


Congdon, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Diva, Nirj Joseph
Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dover, Den
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan, Alan
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dunn, Bob
Legg, Barry


Durant Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lidington, David


Elletson, Harold
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lord, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacKay, Andrew


Evennett, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David






McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Madel, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Merchant, Piers
Stephen, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Streeter, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Sumberg, David


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Sweeney, Walter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sykes, John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick Sir Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patton, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Porter, David Waveney,)
Walden, George


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waller, Gary


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Sir Michael



Sims, Sir Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Derek Conway.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 38.—[Ms Roseanna Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 254.

Division No. 190]
[8.16 pm


AYES


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dafis, Cynog
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Maclennan, Robert


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maddock, Diana


Foster, Don (Bath)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)





Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Salmond, Alex
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and Ms Roseanna Cunningham.


Tyler, Paul





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alexander, Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Faber, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, Sir George


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Bright, Sir Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Butterfill, John
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hicks, Sir Robert


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Horam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clappison, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, Sir David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)






Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Sims, Sir Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew
Speed, Sir Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, Sir David
Spink, Dr Robert


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Merchant Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Robatnan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wolfson, Mark


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy



Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Dr. Liam Fox.


Shaw, Sir Giles (pudsey)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 11

FARMED DEER

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 10, line 28, at end insert—

'(bb) section 25AA;'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Schedule 1

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 13, line 14, after 'each";' insert

';and

(iii) after the word "been" there shall be inserted the words "taken or";'.

No. 6, in page 17, line 5, at end insert—

'The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 (c.45)

.—(1) The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 39 (control of injurious animals), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) In subsection (3) above "deer" means any species of deer which is not included in the definition of "deer" in section 35A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 (interpretation).".'.

(3) After section 42 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Meaning of "animals" for purposes of section 40 to 42

. In sections 40 to 42 of this Act "animals" does not include any species of deer which is included in the definition of "deer" in section 35A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 (interpretation).".'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 17, leave out lines 27 to 29.

No. 8, in page 18, line 13, leave out
'in subsection (3), the words "the carcases of," and'.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the Bill's Third Reading. It has been a long time in the making.
I hope that the Secretary of State will choose the members of the Deer Commission for Scotland wisely. I hope also that they will co-operate and support the chairman, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, who has worked so hard. We know that the new commission has an important part to play. My right hon. and hon. Friends will support the Bill's Third Reading.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall be brief; I understand that another subject is coming up that appears to be distracting many hon. Members.
There is a real issue at stake and it is not just about killing Bambi. The stag at bay is a great concept and tourist attraction in Scotland, but behind that superficially dramatic sight lies a sorrier tale of serious environmental problems because of the deer population and the consequential detrimental effect on the economy. That has all been for the short-term advantage of those trying to attract game hunters.
The extensive culling of deer is essential, and in that regard the history of the past 30 years has been an object lesson in sustainability being the basis of all initial decisions.

Mr. McFall: I shall be brief.
The Scottish National party could have made its case in Committee if it wished, but its Members always jump into Committee, sit for two minutes to get their press and then walk out. "Hard work" is not a phrase that is in their vocabulary.
I wish the Bill success. Its purpose is the sensible management of deer in Scotland. Five years of hard negotiations went into the Bill, involving many interest groups. Not everyone got what they wished. That is why a number of groups in the highlands and islands are very bitter about the Government's acceptance of the amendments in the House of Lords.
I should like to correct the Minister's statement about the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. I spoke to him, and he was not sympathetic to the Government's proposals. He tries as best he can to work with all interests in the highlands and islands and elsewhere. The Labour party is firmly behind him on that issue.
I remind hon. Members that the amendment was moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch in the debate in the other place on 4 December 1995. He suggested that Scotland appears to be an uncertain place politically at the moment. He said that we must reluctantly consider what a Secretary of State sympathetic to the wilder elements could do with the Bill.
Scotland is not an uncertain place at the moment. The Conservative party is down to single figures in the opinion polls. There will certainly be a Labour Government, and we shall take a consensual approach. The Labour party will consider the wider elements and ensure that the legislation is progressive and sensible. I wish the Bill well.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Members' Salaries

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Leader of the House, I must make three announcements. Madam Speaker has ruled that all Back-Bench speeches shall be limited to 10 minutes. All amendments are open for debate, and since the list of hon. Members wishing to contribute is long I remind them that the debate is restricted to three hours and ask them to show some restraint within that limit.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the yearly rates of salaries payable to Members in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 3rd November 1993 should be increased by three per cent.
(2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rates should be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
(3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: motion 5—Parliamentary Pay and Allowances:
That this House takes note of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary pay and allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330), and calls on the Government to take any necessary action to enable implementation of the recommendations.
Motion 6—Members' Salaries (No. 1):
That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the yearly rates of salaries payable to Members in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 3rd November 1993 shall be increased by three per cent.
(2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rates shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
(3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
Motion 7—Members Salaries (No. 2):
That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the salary of a Member shall be at a yearly rate of £43,000.
(2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rate shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
(3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
Motions 8 and 9—Parliament:
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 1), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.


That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 2), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
Motion 10—Parliamentary Pensions:
That this House takes note of, and calls on the Government to implement. Recommendation 16 of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary Pay and Allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330) (supplementary scheme for Ministers and other paid office holders).
Motion 11—Car Mileage Allowance:
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys—

(a) by Members, or
(b) by spouses or persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance is payable—
(1) In respect of journeys commenced in the year starting with 1st April 1997, the allowance shall be payable to any Member at the higher rate up to a total of 20,000 miles and at the lower rate thereafter.
(2) The higher rate is 47.2 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
(3) The lower rate is 21.7 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
(4) For each subsequent year starting with 1st April, the rates shall be increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
(5) The rates shall be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny (with exactly one twentieth being rounded up).
(6) Arrangements shall be made by the Fees Office for ensuring that claims are supported by appropriate particulars.
(7) In this Resolution "the retail price index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).
Motion 12—Office Costs Allowance:
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the limit on the Office Costs Allowance—
(1) The limit for any quarter in the year starting with 1st April 1997 should be £11,591 increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
(2) For any quarter in each subsequent year starting with 1st April the limit should be the limit for a quarter in the previous year increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
(3) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
(4) The limit in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant should be 1.33 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
(5) The limit should be calculated to the nearest pound (with exactly 50 pence being rounded up).
(6) In this Resolution—

(a) "quarter" means a period of three months starting with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January; and
(b) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).

Mr. Newton: In view of the many motions and amendments on the Order Paper, I hope that it will be thought sensible if I begin by setting out the structure as clearly and as briefly as I can.
Essentially, what we have done is to reflect as straightforwardly as possible what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his written answer last Thursday—that we would enable the House to decide whether to endorse the Government's advice that pay increases should be restrained to 3 per cent., or whether to endorse the increases proposed in the Senior Salaries Review Body's report. Those propositions are motions 4 and 5 respectively. Both are expressions of opinion that are freely amendable but do not have direct effect. Thus, the following four motions are the matching substantive resolutions to give practical effect to whatever the House decides. Motions 6 and 8 would implement 3 per cent. for Members and Ministers respectively; motions 7 and 9 would implement the full SSRB pay recommendations for Members and Ministers respectively.
The remaining three motions concern three SSRB recommendations which do not relate to pay as such. Motion 10, which would not be needed if motion 5 were carried, is concerned with parliamentary pensions. Motions 11 and 12 enable the House to agree, if it wishes, the detailed implementation of the SSRB proposals on motor mileage allowance and the office costs allowance respectively. I shall return to those motions later.
The main issue—but certainly not the only one—is clearly the choice between the restraint that the Government urge and the much larger increases proposed in the SSRB report. Before I turn to that, it may help the House if I say something about some of the SSRB recommendations which have, in some cases, attracted rather less attention but which nevertheless are not insignificant.
First, I refer, but only in passing, to the five recommendations described as "development recommendations"—possibilities on which the review body did not make firm recommendations but on which it wished to do further work. These concern pay relativities between Whips and Parliamentary Secretaries and Lords and Commons Ministers below Cabinet level, and suggestions—for the House particularly—about additional pay for certain Members such as Select Committee Chairmen, increased central provision of office equipment and an "exceptional needs" allowance for certain constituencies related to some measurement of work load.
There is plenty of scope for argument about some or all of those, but it is not an argument that we need to carry to a conclusion today, although the Government and the SSRB will obviously wish to take account of anything said in the House today in considering how any such work might best be carried forward.
Secondly, there are a number of recommendations which simply reaffirm the status quo: for example, on the additional costs allowance, the London supplement and the arrangement by which Members who are also Members of the European Parliament continue to receive one third of a Member's salary in respect of their second job—the so-called duality rate. Although none of these requires action by the House, I should make it clear that the Government accept them.
Thirdly, there is a recommendation which will in due course require a resolution by the House but on which further work will plainly be needed before such a resolution can be framed. This is the proposal for an ill-health retirement grant—the introduction, for those whose health makes it undesirable for them to continue to


the end of a Parliament, of the equivalent of the resettlement grant for those who leave at the time of an election. Regardless of the outcome on the main issue tonight—I am looking around for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who has tabled an amendment on this—the Government believe that this recommendation should be accepted in principle and the necessary work on detail put in hand. Thus, should it be necessary to move motion 10, and should the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wish to press her amendment, I would be very happy to accept it. It is exactly in line with what I have just said.
Fourthly, there are those recommendations, other than on the pay rates themselves, reflected in the resolutions before the House tonight. I take them in the order in which they arise. Two concern the mechanism and timing of future increases in pay from whatever levels are decided today. As motion 4 makes clear, the Government accept, and recommend that the House should agree, that the normal date for such increases should be moved from January to April from 1997 onwards and that any such increases should be determined by reference to what is in effect a basket of the pay band mid-points in the new senior civil service pay system.
The House knows—and, I believe, shares—my strongly held view that we need a system which provides for appropriate annual increases without the need for an annual vote on our pay. The sooner we re-establish such a system, the better, and that is what the proposals seek to do. Indeed, whatever the outcome of other matters, the House would wish me to express its thanks to Sir Michael Perry and the members of his review body, not least for their work on this aspect of their remit.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Government refuse to include evidence on the remuneration of peers? Many working peers find it difficult to manage; yet they do as much work as many Members of this House. Are they not being treated disgracefully?

Mr. Newton: The remuneration of working peers is a matter for the other place. There are three recommendations in the report on which I have not touched, and on which I was not planning to touch because they are for determination by the other place, but I am sure that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal and others in another place will note the hon. Gentleman's concern.
I have explained about the linking and dating of future increases. Motion 10 relates to parliamentary pensions. As I have said, that motion will not be needed if motion 5, which would implement the full SSRB report, is passed; but if the House accepts motion 4—the 3 per cent. proposal—motion 10 will be required to signal the House's approval. That would endorse the SSRB's recommendation that the changes relating to accruals and death-in-service gratuities in the parliamentary pensions scheme for which the House voted last year should be carried through to the associated supplementary scheme for Ministers and office holders. That proposal is plainly sensible, and we recommend its acceptance. If the House agrees, implementing regulations will be required. I am currently consulting the trustees on a draft, which is available in the Vote Office.
Motions 11 and 12 concern the car mileage and office costs allowances. The Government believe that the recommended office costs allowance increase of

6 per cent., from £43,908 this year to £46,363 in 1997–98, should be accepted. Again, I make that recommendation regardless of the outcome on other issues. I am afraid that I cannot smile on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), which would go beyond the SSRB's recommendations. Although the hon. Gentleman will doubtless make his case with his usual eloquence, it is unlikely that I shall be able to advise the House to vote for the amendment.
I do not think that the position relating to the mileage allowance is as straightforward. Having noted the view that the top rate of that allowance was high in comparison with the rates provided by other schemes, but also the point that a number of Members of Parliament will have bought cars in the light of a pattern that had been established for many years, the SSRB concluded, "on balance", that it should be abolished—along with the bottom rate—and that all mileage should be reimbursed at what is currently the middle rate.
Whatever else may be said, this would undoubtedly be a radical upheaval of arrangements under which decisions about the purchase and replacement of cars, with significant financial effects, have already been made. The Government feel that, in the context of a similarly radical change in remuneration—that is, if the House votes for the SSRB recommendations on pay—the proposal should be accepted. If, however, the House votes for restraint in relation to beneficial proposals on pay, I think that it can reasonably expect similar restraint in relation to adverse changes elsewhere. Paragraph 21 of the report itself states:
The primary recommendations in this report are designed as an integrated package.
Accordingly, if—as I hope—the House accepts motion 4, I do not intend to move motion 11.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am astonished by what the Leader of the House has said about the Government's attitude. Will he confirm that the proposals relating to the car mileage allowance are not due to take effect until April? Will he also confirm that any Member of Parliament who seeks re-election at the next general election could not, in any circumstances, receive a guarantee that the allowance would be provided after the election, because of the decision of the electorate? Why should the Government prolong the scheme beyond April, given that the election will take place in May at the latest? Surely that position is indefensible.

Mr. Newton: I do not think so, especially in the light of what I have just said about what the report states. I am postulating circumstances in which the Government have not felt able to make a recommendation to the House—and the decision is for the House—and in which the House does not accept what the SSRB recommended across the board. The SSRB specifically said:
The primary recommendations in this report are designed as an integrated package.
What I have said reflects the position accurately. It is a proper, balanced approach.

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House has just said that the decision will be a matter for the House, but he must move motion 11 for it to become a matter for the House. He said that he might not move the motion. Will he give an undertaking that,


whatever happens to motions 4 and 5, he will move the motion relating to car mileage allowances and let the House decide?

Mr. Newton: I said quite clearly that in those circumstances I would not expect to move motion 11, and I will not depart from that.

Mr. Chris Mullin: No doubt the Leader of the House has noticed that motion 11 carries my name as well as his. If he does not move it, I shall.

Mr. Newton: I had indeed noticed, and that thought had occurred to me. Although it does not alter what I have said, it will no doubt encourage the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. John Carlisle: As my right hon. Friend and the House will know, I have some commercial interest in the matter. I declare that interest now.
If the 74p mileage allowance is removed almost immediately, or within 12 months, that will cause great distress and financial hardship to many right hon. and hon. Members who have legitimately purchased cars on the basis of that allowance. The blackmail tactic of balancing one motion against another is unacceptable. I plead with my right hon. Friend to extend the period to at least two or three years to accommodate Members of Parliament who have bought cars recently on the basis of that allowance.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made a number of points that others may wish to weigh when considering what I said a few moments ago. I must tell him, however, that on the question of whether motion 11 should be moved in the context of the House's acceptance of motion 5—which supports the full SSRB package—the Government made it clear that the House would be able to make decisions on the SSRB report as a whole. In those circumstances, it would not be right for me to decline to move motion 11. It is reasonable for me to do so in the context of the much more limited proposals that the Government prefer, but it would be inconsistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week about enabling the House to make decisions on the SSRB package as a whole.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What worries me is that the committee apparently took no real evidence from those who know about the cost of maintaining a vehicle. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the illustrative vehicle running costs issued by the Royal Automobile Club last November. Is it not obscene, immoral and wrong for people who have cars with low running costs to be able to claim an allowance that will make them a huge profit, while people living many miles from London who need a more comfortable car in which to travel long distances will be subsidising their parliamentary and constituency work mileage?

Mr. Newton: I am well aware that my hon. Friend—along with, for all I know, other hon. Members on both sides of the House—feels strongly about the matter. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will probably want to develop his points further. I have already made it

clear, however, that the Government feel that if the House accepts the SSRB's highly beneficial pay recommendations, it should be prepared to accept this recommendation for the same reason—that it was presented as part of a package.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I live a great deal further from London than my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I find that I can do the journey comfortably in a middle-grade car. I reach my destination safely, without breaking the speed limit.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a somewhat different point and I am bound to say that I do not particularly want to get caught in the crossfire between Lancashire and Cheshire.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he is proposing tonight is the perpetuation of a fudge? It is far better to accept the whole package, the good and the bad—and I speak as one who does have a large car and a long distance to travel—than to fudge it and to go on and on, as we have year after year, in a wholly undesirable way.

Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend makes a point that will be shared by others and no doubt made in the debate. The Government have provided the House with the opportunity, as they said that they would, to take that decision if it wishes, but the Government cannot escape the responsibility of giving the House advice. That is what I have been seeking to do.

Mr. Michael Stern: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way, but for the last time, I think, remembering what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said about the number of hon. Members wishing to speak.

Mr. Stern: My right hon. Friend has referred to the SSRB package as a balanced package. How can he possibly justify that description when changes in salary will be evenly felt across the House while changes in the car allowance are totally random in their effect on individual Members, depending on the size of their constituency and the distance from London?

Mr. Newton: I simply quoted from the SSRB's report—its own description of the basis on which it had made its proposals, taken as a whole.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: May I make this other point?

Mr. Ashton: The right hon. Gentleman has been giving way to Conservative Members.

Mr. Newton: I have given way to several Opposition Members. Many hon. Members want to speak and I do not wish to speak for a length of time that prevents many of those Members from speaking.
Before I respond to any more interventions, I should like to make this point, which is of some importance. Either way, whatever the House decides on the motor mileage allowance proposals, the House should accept the SSRB's associated recommendation for the system of controls for vehicle mileage allowance claims to be reviewed and strengthened, because the plain fact is that, whatever the allowance level, it must be right to ensure proper accountability.

Mr. Ashton: I wish to make just one point. When the allowance was fixed—I was in the House at the time and the right hon. Gentleman may have been too—the Committee simply asked the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club, as independent bodies, to fix an allowance. Until then, we had been claiming the train fare. The agreement was that if hon. Members used their cars they got what it cost for a railway warrant. We then went to a system in the early 1970s where the RAC and AA fixed the mileage, which has since gone up, index linked. Why has the report changed it to a market rate during a depression when employers are screwing it down to what they can get away with? That is the yardstick that they have been using. They have changed the yardstick.

Mr. Newton: I am of course aware of the work of the Peyton committee in the early 1980s, which led to the allowance in its present form. As it happens, the RAC ceased some years ago to publish the relevant index, which is why I found myself with the difficulty of not being able to uprate the allowance at all.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but my right hon. Friend is incorrect. I have a copy of the RAC's illustrative running costs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Winterton: From November 1995.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Chairmen's Panel. He should sit down immediately. He can make a speech later, if he catches the Speaker's eye.

Mr. Newton: The last thing I would wish to do is to mislead either my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or the House. We are simply at cross-purposes. As I was told repeatedly as I tried to find a new way of uprating the motor mileage allowance some two or three years ago, the index on which the allowance was based had ceased to be published by the RAC. It may be that it publishes a different sort of index of motoring costs, but that calls into question whether it had not revised the basis underlying the 1983–84 arrangement.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: I will, but I shall take far too much time.

Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know, if he looks at page 100 of the appendices given by the review body, that it quotes the RAC rate for 2000 cc motor cars as

79.7p, which is more than we are currently getting. The press likes to tell people that we are getting an inflated rate, when in fact it is a reduced rate and it takes no account of the fact that, because we have to have our cars in London, we are duty bound to provide a car for our spouses, which is not paid for by the House.

Mr. Newton: As I expected, this issue is clearly a matter of considerable contention in the House. I have sought to set out what the Government believe to be the right approach, but if the House wishes to accept the SSRB package, it should be willing to accept the whole package. If, however, the House accepts the Government's advice to be much more restrained, it would be reasonable to take a different view on the matter. Beyond that, it would be sensible if hon. Members would develop their arguments in the debate.

Mr. John Greenway: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have one of the largest constituencies in England. I simply want to ask him this: what evidence did the review body take from individual Members as to their motoring needs in their constituencies? I believe the answer to be none, in which case, regardless of what the House decides tonight on pay, this matter should surely be referred back for proper investigation because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said, it impacts differently on Members across the House and will create injustice.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is introducing a further line of argument. I respect that, but I do not think that I am in a position to add to what I have said.
I come now to the SSRB's main pay recommendations. As the House knows, the review body recommended a salary of £43,000an increase of just over 26 per cent. on the present figure. It also recommended that Ministers and office holders in the House of Commons should henceforth receive a full, rather than a reduced, parliamentary salary—the abatement now is 25 per cent.—and that after the next election there should be large increases for Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister. As was made clear last week, the Government think that those recommendations are too high and instead propose an increase of 3 per cent., which would lead to a salary of £35,108 per year for Members.
On that basis, the Government also propose to continue their policy of giving Ministers the same percentage increase as Members. We have therefore proposed increases of 3 per cent. for Ministers and other office holders. Ministers would of course also move to an effective date of 1 April for increases, like Members, and receive the same percentage increases that Members receive under the proposed new arrangement.
Members will have their own views about the merits of the SSRB proposals considered in isolation, and of the surveys, comparability studies and judgments on which they rest, but the plain fact is that they cannot be considered in isolation, either by the Government or, in my view, by the House. Inescapably, such recommendations have to be considered in relation to their impact on the wider aims of public policy, and in particular in relation to the overriding importance of maintaining progress towards our economic objectives—


with firm control of public spending, in which public sector pay is an important ingredient, playing a crucial part in that.

Mr. Stuart Bell: If the Government intended to give Members a 3 per cent. increase, in line with their other policy objectives, why did the right hon. Gentleman have this review in the first place?

Mr. Newton: The background to the review is that, unhappily from my standpoint, the linkage system which I thought that I had put in place two years ago had, to put it bluntly, fallen apart and we were left with no basis.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: You broke the linkage in 1992.

Mr. Newton: For once, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is not on the ball. In 1992 or 1993—I forget which year—the Government decided to match the freeze that we had asked for in other areas. In moving the House out of the freeze I re-established a linkage related to civil service pay rates and it proved to be less than durable due to continuing changes in the way in which civil service pay is settled.
Earlier this year, we found that there was no basis for any increase at all next January. It was extremely difficult to see what could be substituted for the linkage that had been broken and it seemed right to ask the SSRB to look at that. The House will know that more than half of those hon. Members who by convention are entitled to sign early-day motions, including nearly 200 Opposition Members, signed an early-day motion demanding a review. It was not unreasonable for the Government to respond to that, but it was clear that that could not be on the basis of a commitment to implement whatever emerged from the review regardless of the Government's judgment as to what was right.

Sir David Steel: Does the Leader of the House agree that one of the most important sentences in the report is in paragraph 36? The review body states:
Had the TSRB recommendation of £19,000 per annum been accepted in 1983 and subsequently uprated by the percentage factors which were actually applied each year, it would have produced a Parliamentary salary of £42,300 today, as compared with the current £34,085.
The Leader of the House is inviting us to make the mistake that was made in 1983, thus saddling our successors with the embarrassment that we have today.

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman obviously feels strongly on this subject. I note that, and I read with interest that sentence in the report. However, I do not think that it can absolve the Government from making a judgment about the advice to offer in today's circumstances.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way for the last time.

Mr. Miller: If the Government have a view about what is acceptable in terms of overall pay in the current climate, what evidence did they present to the pay review body on that?

Mr. Newton: We gave evidence on these matters in relation to what is sometimes known as affordability and

it was very much in line with the evidence that we gave to other pay review bodies last September, but updated. [Interruption.] The review body does not publish any of the evidence that is given to it other than that which it has commissioned from management consultants and other such people. For example, it would not have published what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said to it or wrote to it or, indeed, such evidence from anybody else.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the SSRB had evidence from the Government on affordability before it came to its conclusions and decided on its package?

Mr. Newton: The Government put written evidence to the SSRB. We submitted the same evidence for that review as we submitted to all other pay review bodies last September. The only difference was that this year's evidence was slightly updated.

Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the Leader of the House a perfectly reasonable question. The list containing the names of those who gave evidence to the review body contains the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Members, but it does not contain the name of anyone in the Government. May we be clear about precisely who gave evidence?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Newton: Evidence was given by, for example, the Lord Privy Seal. As I have said, the Government put in a written statement of evidence on affordability.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way again.
The approach that we have adopted in recent years has successfully constrained public sector pay to reasonable and realistic levels. It is one of the policies that has contributed to restraint in other sectors and thus to low inflation, lower interest rates, falling unemployment and faster growth. The question that the House and the Government have to answer is whether we can ask for restraint from others without exercising it ourselves. Uncomfortable as it may be, my answer to that is clear. I urge the House to accept motion 4.

.9.4 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am afraid that the House is not looking its most elegant and best. It is perceived outside as in an ugly mood on these matters. We are being portrayed as a bunch of Dickensian money-grubbers, and the very credibility of Parliament will be at stake if we must regularly go through this type of debate.
The problem appears to be a very simple one, because we all know that we have a case for a substantial pay increase. As we all know, the reality is that when we compare our roles with those of others in our communities—with those in the fire service and police


service, in local authorities or in the education services—we find that we are not paid realistically or reasonably in comparison with their rates.
The problem is that the public are not prepared to stomach our case, and the reason for that is to be found in the background debate before the setting up of the Nolan committee. The truth is that the public want to see Members of Parliament conducting themselves a little better before they are prepared to stomach such a major increase. Therefore, my strategy is to block the £43,000, because I think that it is wrong.
We have two ways in which to block the £43,000. We can vote for the Government's motion—motion 4. Alternatively, I have tabled an amendment that would effectively block the £43,000 by introducing it in a three-phase process over three consecutive years. In tabling that amendment, I was conscious of the real reason why many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, are pressing for the proposals of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
I have discussed the matter with many of my colleagues, and the first reason why they are pressing for the proposals is that they are totally dissatisfied with the arrangements for office costs. The reality is that, through the Fees Office, many hon. Members—I do not do it, because in principle I have decided that I am not prepared to do it—transfer funds from their salary to their secretarial allowance to compensate for the inadequate funding of their offices.
We know from reports in the newspapers even this morning that some researchers and secretaries are still not properly remunerated and that offices are still underfunded. In some cases, hon. Members are providing office accommodation free for their constituents because they do not believe that it is possible to claim enough under their current allowances.
Secondly, many hon. Members are motivated by the difficulties that they know hon. Members have when they leave the House to retire. This morning, I was speaking to a Member of the other place who had spent many years in the House of Commons. He was a senior hon. Member when he left. He told me that his pension is £180 a month, and that, in a recent period of illness, he found that he had to attend the other place because he could not survive on his pension. I really do not think that that is the way to run a modern Parliament. Our constitutional arrangements—if they are constitutional arrangements—surely must be changed to secure the financial viability of pensioners leaving this place on retirement.
The SSRB certainly failed on the first count. Therefore, as I said, my amendment would give hon. Members the opportunity to secure the £43,000 objective over three consecutive years. In the interim period—while the SSRB is still reviewing secretarial costs—my amendment would give hon. Members the opportunity to transfer moneys to their secretarial allowances to see them through the period before us.
The fifth paragraph of my amendment sets a notional £43,000 for pension purposes. The precedent for that is to be found in the 1975 resolution on the proceedings of the House when pay and pensions were dealt with.
The sixth paragraph provides for a salary supplement for pension contribution purposes to secure a pension on £43,000. My amendment is a compromise, and I hope that the House will consider it.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will excuse my not commenting in detail on his amendment. My view on expenses is that they should fully cover the costs that hon. Members have to incur, but should not be expected to produce a profit and should be properly monitored.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was the executive director of a major company, and about a year after I retired from Government, I rejoined the board of that company as a non-executive director. As most hon. Members will know, it is now one of the largest public companies in the country. I am a member of the remuneration committee of that public company.
I recognise straight away that the public service differs from the wealth-creating private sector, but I suggest that the difference in many cases is in there being fewer obvious measures of performance for those in the public sector than for those in the private sector. It is more that difference than any difference in the nature of the tasks and responsibilities.
The remuneration committee of a public limited company advises the board on the pay of executive directors. The objective of a remuneration committee is quite clear; it is to attract, retain and motivate people of the highest calibre to fulfil the duties. I emphasise the words "attract" and "retain". The annual report of the company to which I am referring also makes it clear that, in carrying out its responsibilities, the remuneration committee has regard to comparable salaries and remuneration packages in comparable companies outside the one under consideration.
The review body has been given a similar task in respect of hon. Members and Ministers. It has used similar methods. It has looked carefully at a wide range of comparables—I know that they cannot be exact—and anyone who has read the report would agree that those comparables have some relevance.
I hope that the review body had similar objectives to the remuneration committee of which I am a member, which is to attract and retain men and women of the highest calibre who will offer themselves for election to the House and be prepared to serve as Ministers of the Crown. Surely we can all agree that that is a sensible objective.
I believe that the review body's recommendations would enable us to attract and retain Members of Parliament and Ministers of ability. In my view, it has done a first-class job, and a reading of the report bears that out. It has covered the ground fully and its members are extremely experienced people who deserve the congratulations of the House and of the country on their work. I submit that it is in the interests of future Parliaments and future Governments that we should accept and implement the recommendations in their entirety straight away.
The review body's task was easier in respect of ministerial salaries than for the salaries of hon. Members, because it is easier to evaluate the job and to find comparable jobs in the outside world. I know that it will be of interest, particularly to Opposition Members, to know that ministerial jobs are full time and, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends know, they are very full time.
It struck me, as it may have struck other hon. Members, that the report notes that many hon. Members suggested that improving ministerial pay is a higher priority than increasing their own. That was most commendable. Indeed, I am not aware that any serious commentator does not accept the need for a substantial increase in ministerial pay. There is no need for a detailed argument, as many hon. Members want to speak. The facts and figures are all in the report.
I remind the House, however, that one of the inevitable consequences of failure to make the increase will be that the House will not be able to attract and retain sufficient hon. Members of sufficient ability who are prepared to serve as Ministers. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has pointed out the consequences of having put off making a decision on this issue.
I shall make two final points. First, we frequently hear the old story that there is no need for an increase because there is no shortage of applicants. There is no shortage of applicants for many jobs, including journalists, television newsreaders, lawyers and even supermarket managers. However, we have to ask not whether there is a shortage of applicants but whether we are attracting—and are likely to continue to attract—applicants of the right calibre. We cannot continue to ignore the comparables to which our attention has been drawn, not least in early-day motion 1101, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).
Secondly, on pages 9 and 10 of volume 2, the review body's report draws attention to the jumps between different ministerial posts. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the general view that it is bad practice to have too large a jump between different levels of responsibility. If we greatly increase Ministers' salaries at all levels—as we must—and if we do not take similar action in respect of ordinary hon. Members, there is a risk that any hon. Member might feel that a successful parliamentary career required him or her to fulfil a Front-Bench job. In addition, those on the Opposition Benches—whichever party they represent—would be automatically deprived of the greater opportunities provided by a ministerial salary.
I emphasise that the undoubted justification for a substantial increase in ministerial salaries is another supporting justification for the report's recommendation on salaries of hon. Members. We need to attract and retain hon. Members of ability—I would suggest outstanding ability—and, if we fail to do so, we risk damaging not so much this Parliament as future Parliaments and the reputation of the House and the country.
The review body has set out what is required and we should accept it. We have put off acting on these matters for far too long. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will accept that there will always be a case for restraint, on whatever occasion the matter is brought before the House. Of course there is a case for restraint on this occasion—my right hon. Friend has put it to the best of his ability—but there is also an overwhelming case for taking long delayed action. The longer we put it off, the greater difficulty we shall face and the greater the risk to the House, future Governments and future hon. Members.
I cannot foresee a better opportunity to take action that we should have taken a long time ago. I recommend to the House that we accept the report in its entirety as a complete package, as my right hon. Friend suggested, and we should do so this evening.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise to address the two amendments standing in my name as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. They were tabled also in the names of other managing trustees of the fund from both sides of the House.
It is not generally understood, even by Ministers, that under the Government's new, post-Maxwell pensions legislation, the managing trustees of the parliamentary fund have legal duties and responsibilities in relation to recommendations from the Senior Salaries Review Body—SSRB—where the interests of its members and their dependants are at issue. As those who have read it will have noticed, the SSRB's report demonstrates how inextricably pay and pensions are linked. That link alone eminently justifies the tabling of the amendments in the names of managing trustees of the fund.
It was because of our additional legal duties as managing trustees that we sought counsel's opinion on their effect on our freedom of manoeuvre in relation to the SSRB's recommendations. The advice we received was unequivocal and clear. It was, first, that it is proper for the managing trustees, in considering what is best for Members, to regard recommendations of the review body as a proper guide for their decisions. We were told also that it is not proper for the trustees to have regard to party viewpoints or whether it is the Government's policy not to implement a particular SSRB recommendation.
The House will know that, in the course of the SSRB's recent inquiry, I gave oral evidence on behalf of the managing trustees and made a range of proposals for improving the parliamentary fund. They reflected, in particular, the growing opinion now that more could and should be done to help retired Members, their widows and other dependants.
For pensions, however, the SSRB concluded that our scheme compares well with other public sector schemes and that
the best comparators are with the public sector".
Inevitably, this disappoints the managing trustees, more especially since it takes no account whatever of the fact that the civil service—it is to the civil service that the SSRB looks for the best pay comparator for Members of Parliament—has a non-contributory pension scheme.
As the Leader of the House said in his speech about the parliamentary fund on 17 July last in response to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins):
there is no getting away from the fact—nor do I seek to disguise it—that this is a contributory scheme and that the civil service scheme is not".—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1416.]
Nor does the SSRB's treatment of parliamentary pensions take any account of what happened in 1983 when, long before the Maxwell scandal erupted, the then Government decided to raid our fund to offset part of the cost for phasing in a pay award by gratuitously increasing the Member's contribution to a wholly unnecessary 9 per cent. of salary.
There was no talk then of the civil service being the best comparator for parliamentary pensions or of the repercussive effects of that huge and unnecessary increase in the Member's contribution on other schemes in the public sector. The decision to impose a rate of 9 per cent. was totally unrelated to the financial needs of our fund at the time, but of direct and substantial benefit to the Exchequer. It was a clear case of manipulating a pension fund at the Members' expense: a technique which was later refined and perfected by others and which the present Government, to their credit, have now legislated against.
That is but one reason why it is not for Ministers or anyone else to complain now of Members of Parliament unfairly benefiting at the expense of the Exchequer. As I have shown in previous debates, the Exchequer contribution was seriously and most unfairly out of line with what Members had to pay over many years after 1983. The Exchequer was also the main beneficiary of the managing trustees' investment policy. For far too long, we were, in fact, victims of our own success: the more that policy succeeded, the more disproportionately it helped the Exchequer.
If the managing trustees are disappointed with the SSRB' s treatment of our proposals to improve the fund, the SSRB, too, has every justification for being disappointed, indeed deeply disquieted, by the way in which its recommendations have been treated by the Government. In his letter to Sir Michael Perry last February, the Prime Minister asked him and his colleagues on the SSRB
to undertake a comprehensive review of the level and structure of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances and to make recommendations for the future".
Yet on 4 July, some five months later, and within just a week of seeing the SSRB's report, the Prime Minister told this House:
The Government … are clear that the recommended increases for Members' and Ministers' pay are too high and that the motions to give these effect should not be passed".—[Official Report, 4 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 506.]
That reply treated the SSRB's report as if it was one about an annual pay round increase that had to be compared with others in the current year and particularly with increases being paid in the public sector, whereas in fact what the report provides and what the SSRB was commissioned to undertake—again I quote the Prime Minister's own words—was a comprehensive review of the level and structure of parliamentary pay and allowances with recommendations for the future.
This is not just a disquieting way to treat the SSRB: it is also damaging to the whole future of independent pay reviews and feeds the prejudices of those who deliberately misrepresent the scope and longer-term significance of the report. It also obscures the strong signal sent to the Government by the SSRB that any new link with civil service pay, which the Prime Minister's parliamentary reply of 4 July says he himself wants to forge
will only be effective if
parliamentary
salaries are set at a correct level".
That warning to Ministers not to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors comes at a time when, by common consent, parliamentary pay is worth no more, in real terms, than it was in 1964. Indeed, the most recent league

table on parliamentary pay shows the UK in the relegation zone, third from the bottom, about which a leader in The Times on 14 November 1995 said:
In the past 30 years the average real income of Britons has risen by 80 per cent.; that of MPs is still the same as it was in 1964".
In an apparent criticism of successive Ministers, one as sharp as I have ever seen in any review body report, the SSRB pointedly asserts that the increase it now recommends is needed to make up the ground lost by failure to implement the review body's 1983 report. Had the Top Salaries Review Body recommendation of £19,000 per annum been accepted in 1983 and subsequently uprated by the percentage factors which were actually applied each year, it would have produced a parliamentary salary of some £42,300 today, as compared with the current £34,085. That means that a Member who was in the House then and is still here has lost a cumulative total of £75,800 over the years since 1983, due wholly to the failure to implement the independent review body's report of that year. There can be few other people, here or anywhere else, who have sacrificed more in pay restraint than Members of this House. It makes Job, by comparison, seem guilty of irascible impatience.
It must be said that the only change since the SSRB was commissioned to undertake its inquiry in February and the Government's summary rejection of its report on 4 July is that we are now five months nearer to a general election. It is not a pretty picture, and I entirely agree with those in the media who say that it is high time now for us to be realists and not populists on this issue.
I have respect for any hon. Member who decides not to vote for the recommended pay increase and refuses to accept it. In the case of every increase of parliamentary pay approved by this House over my 32 years here, there have been those who were said to have so decided. But I have to say, as of now, that I understand that there are only two Members on less than full salary. For how long those who refused but now accept the last increase held out, I have no idea. Nor do I know how many will refuse the increase that the independent review body recommends if it is approved by the House. What I am sure they will feel, with me, however, is that it is not for anyone to pressurise Members on how they should vote tonight. While party leaders must state their views, it must ultimately be for individual Members to decide the issue.
Many Members will have foremost in their minds—and rightly so—the effect of what they decide tonight, not for themselves but for their dependants. Some enjoy less robust health than others—as the managing trustees of the pension fund know all too well from their work—and worry more about the security of their families. That is one compelling reason why it is not for anyone to pressurise them on how they should vote in this debate.
Why seek independent advice if one is not prepared to accept it? To consult an independent review body is to imply a readiness to accept its findings and, if the Government succeed tonight, the SSRB will be well justified in asking them to go elsewhere for any future review of parliamentary pay and pensions. At the very least, we shall owe Sir Michael Perry and his colleagues at the SSRB profound apologies—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Sir Terence Higgins: I wish to support the review body's recommendations regarding Members of Parliament and Ministers, and to reject the Government's proposals.
It is frequently said that Members of Parliament determine their own pay, but over the years it has in fact been determined by the Government of the day. Whatever the pay review body may have said, time and again Governments, for purely tactical reasons, have phased, staged and reneged on what independent bodies have proposed. The effect of that over 30 years has been that, while the incomes of people in the country on average have increased by 80 per cent., in real terms Members of Parliament have had no increase whatever, and Ministers' pay has more than halved.
Against that background, it was entirely sensible that, in response to the overwhelming demand from early-day motion 351, we set up a review body that would be able to take a strategic view. One must congratulate the review body on its report, produced very much against the clock. It goes into great detail, and makes an overwhelming case for the recommendations to be accepted.
Let us nevertheless be clear in our minds that what is proposed in the report will go nowhere near far enough to restore the position of 30 years ago, which itself was not very good. I took a pay cut when I entered the House, and I dare say that many other hon. Members did so. The review body therefore makes a very moderate proposal in the context of the position over time.
There were exchanges earlier as to what evidence the Government gave. Whatever that evidence was, the review body reached its conclusion having taken into account the evidence submitted to it by the Government. It no doubt moderated what might otherwise have been the conclusions of its report in the light of the Government's evidence. In those circumstances, it would be totally wrong for the Government to reject the view expressed by the review body.
We are told that we must exercise restraint. It is plain from the figures that I quoted that we have exercised restraint for 30 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is very little evidence that anyone has ever followed our example. In any case, they cannot possibly have had the figures I have quoted if that were so. At all events, we now encounter the extraordinary position, once again, of the Government advancing a tactical argument, saying, "Exercise restraint—only 3 per cent."
What the Government should do, and what Opposition Front Benchers should do, is explain to the public that we have exercised restraint, but the position has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer acceptable—and, in my view, extremely dangerous. So let us hear no more about restraint; the restraint has been exercised, and it is wrong to proceed in the way that the Government have suggested.
We must nevertheless appreciate the point about the link. Time and again in the House we have had problems because we have to review it and vote on it annually. I accept what the Leader of the House said on that point, but we must start from the right basis, and we need to conduct a once-for-all reappraisal of the overall position.
What is remarkable today is the extent to which the media now support that. I cannot recall a previous occasion when that has been so. True, the "Today"

programme this morning said that the review body's proposal was nine times the rate of inflation—which is ludicrous, for the reasons that I have just given—but, by and large, from The Sun to The Times, the public are gradually being told what needs to be done. It is important that the Government contribute to that process.
There are frightening dangers regarding recruitment, and, more especially, retention. The crucial point about the House of Commons and the need to get Members of quality, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) rightly emphasised, is the fact that we need a reserve of Members who may become Ministers.
The quality of government will deteriorate if we do not do that. Regardless of what any individual who is putting in a pay claim outside may say, our constituents will lose if we do not have a House of Commons and Ministers of sufficient integrity and quality. It is an honour to be in the House—that is absolutely true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove pointed out, people are bound to take into account the situation outside—and it is analysed in great detail in volume 2 of the report.
The extent to which this place holds the Government to account has been enormously improved by the development of the Select Committee system. However, to a large extent that depends on hon. Members remaining in the House after they have ceased to be Ministers, to serve as Chairmen or members of the Select Committees. Former Ministers who serve on Select Committees, either as Chairmen or members, will not remain in the House with a pay rate of £33,000 a year—it would be absolutely ludicrous to expect them to do so. Therefore, the ability of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account is undermined by the Government's proposals this evening.
Although I shall not be here to benefit from any increase in pay in the next Parliament, I believe that, if we do not take this opportunity tonight, we will face the danger of a deterioration in the quality of government, both at ministerial and at parliamentary level. That is of great importance.
I suspect that we will not have another chance to debate this matter, because it is not likely to come to a head in the next Parliament if we do nothing now. We have to take action now to ensure that the House and the Government who sit in it are efficient. That is what our constituents deserve, and we have to explain that to them in the context of the proposals before us this evening. I profoundly hope that this evening we will carry the package proposed by the review body.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) in the debate. For many years, he has flown the flag for reasonable increases in pay and for a better analysis of what Members of Parliament need to do their job. He deserves credit for that, because he has put the case extremely well.
I support the amendments that were spoken to by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I have recently joined the pension trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, and I am distraught and disconcerted by some of the actions we have to take, using our small discretionary fund, to supplement the pensions that are in payment to some former Members and their


relatives. It is our duty to do that, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe pointed out. We got legal advice that made it quite clear that, as pension trustees, we had a duty to ensure that pensioners' provisions were improved to the maximum available to us.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe tabled the amendments as chairman of the trustees—and I pay tribute to the work that he does in that regard. The amendments are important, and I hope that they will be supported by hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the main question of the 3 per cent. versus the package.
This should be a House of Commons matter. The way in which the Government have acted has not allowed hon. Members a proper and unfettered consideration this evening.
The Leader of the House has discharged his duties reasonably well, and I do not hold him personally responsible for our difficulties. However, I think that some of his Cabinet confederates have made it impossible for us to consider the matter properly. No matter what role we play as Members of Parliament—whether party leaders, Ministers or Chairmen of Select Committees—we must make our own decisions, having consulted our consciences. We must be able to defend the decisions we take and the votes we cast this evening to our constituents: the public have that safeguard. That is the proper way to determine whether our decisions are right and proper.
I think that the review body performed a difficult task well in a short space of time. I was surprised that the Leader of the House did not acknowledge its work. I was even more surprised that he did not make it clear whether the Government accept the pay review recommendations but are seeking pay restraint on a voluntary basis. That is my clear recollection of what occurred in 1983: the Government said, "We think that the Top Salaries Review Body report is right, but, in the special circumstances of the case, we should exercise restraint".
The Government do not say that now; they say simply that they do not accept the report's recommendations, but they refuse to say why. I think that the Government should clarify that point. It is important to know whether they accept the report, as the question may return to haunt us in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has described. We know that the Government are seeking voluntary pay restraint, but we must know also how they view the recommendations.
It is quite incomprehensible that the Government should commission a report, invite the review body to produce recommendations and then treat them in a summary way without justification. I think that it is totally wrong. I am particularly worried about the sentence in the review body's report in paragraph 79:
We note however that unless the primary recommendations relating to these pay levels (recommendations 1 to 13) are implemented as recommended the uprating mechanism will not preserve an appropriate level.
If that is correct, it is an extremely serious matter. The report states that the formula that the package produces is appropriate as an uprating mechanism, and will stand the test of time, only if the whole package is accepted. The Government have made it clear that they favour a 3 per cent. increase instead of the package. Therefore, according to the report, the Government would destroy the formula.
If that formula is destroyed, it is inevitable that the issue will haunt us time after time. We are being invited to try to make judgments about what we are worth in terms of remuneration—that is unedifying and undignified. I do not have the scales with which to weigh the various elements that one must balance in order to make such a judgment.
Did the pay review body assess the questions put to it correctly and draw the right conclusions? I believe that it used the right general principles and that it considered the right factors. It measured largely the same recommendations and adopted the same approach as the 1983 review body report, as was mentioned earlier. I think that the review body made the right comparisons. It concluded that the salary should be somewhere between £38,000 and £50,000. As the right hon. Member for Worthing said earlier, I think that we can argue that the review body has taken cognisance of the need for some restraint. No one has mentioned the fact that international comparisons are appropriate.
If the question is whether the review body's assessment and conclusions are right, I answer—for myself—in the affirmative. The second question, if the pay review body is right, is whether we are right to accept voluntary pay restraint and override the recommendations. I largely support the arguments that have already been made.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has said, the 1983 decision was wrong. The clawback of £4,000 or £5,000 has produced this problem, and if we make the same decision this time, we will compound that mistake. We will also diminish the role of hon. Members, and we should not accept that lightly.
I am comfortable with the SSRB's comparisons, and I do not mind my salary being related to those of general practitioners, secondary school heads and others who do responsible jobs, because Members of Parliament carry a similar amount of responsibility. If we vote for 3 per cent., we may force people like myself, who are full-time Members with no outside income, to look for second jobs to be able to educate our children and discharge our duties to our families.
The point has also been made that we might discourage good people from standing for election in future, and I mentioned earlier the problem of folk receiving inadequate pensions after many years' service in the House.
The relationships with the people with whom we work should also be taken into account. Public utility chief executives, civil servants, health board executives and local authority officers are all now paid more than twice—sometimes three times—as much as Members of Parliament.
This issue relates to the status and the authority of Back-Bench Members of the House of Commons. It is essential for the well-being of the House, and therefore indirectly for the benefit of our constituents, that that status and dignity is maintained. We should vote for the package in its entirety, because otherwise we will choose the level of our remuneration, and it is neither sensible, logical nor right that we should be asked to do that. If we do not get the decision right tonight, we will have to go through the whole unedifying spectacle again in five, six or 10 years' time. That is the last thing we want

Sir Peter Lloyd: I shall make a few short, disjointed observations. No Member of the House, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) suggested, likes the situation in which we so visibly and publicly set our salaries. That is why, from time to time, we have sought to farm the job out to a review body, and why, when that body makes its recommendations and the issue lands back on our plate for a decision, we have always, so far, balked at accepting them.
The recommendation always seems to involve such a large leap. Invariably, we have managed to get the worst of both worlds—bad publicity for the original recommendation, and no publicity for finally setting it aside. That does not mean, however, that I have concluded that this time we should accept the recommendation, although I know that many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members take a contrary view.
I do not believe that we should ever have handed the problem over to an outside committee. We cannot escape responsibility. It always comes back to us. We know that and the public know it, so it is no good claiming that the recommendation is from an independent committee. The question should have been put to a Committee of the House to make recommendations, after drawing on professional and expert advice as required. We should be debating the recommendations of a Committee of the House tonight.
It is the increasing practice of the House to rely on eminent outsiders to make its inquiries for it, to instruct it and help it to do what it has not got the courage or resources to do for itself. In the long run, that is not good for Parliament or for parliamentary democracy. The way that we have dealt with this issue is an example of what is wrong. We should manage our affairs properly, on our collective judgment, and we should not plead the judgment of others, however distinguished.
It is especially unsatisfactory to refer ourselves to a general review body on senior salaries. I make no criticism of the review body's able members, but the very act of referring the decision suggests that being an elected Member of Parliament is just another public sector job, comparable to a range of others. That is what we do when we accept a report that in management consultancy terms is sensibly argued. If I remember correctly, the comparators that found favour were head teachers of large schools, lieutenants-colonel and grade 5 civil servants. They are all excellent people with responsible jobs. In some ways, their jobs are more responsible than the work of a Back-Bench Member. His job, however, is very different and there is no meaningful comparison.
I fear that if we accept the report we shall go much further down the road of making the job of a Member just another public sector job, when it is both much more and less. Perhaps we are inevitably moving towards membership of this place being just another middle-grade public sector professional occupation. I do not believe, however, that we should hurry further down that road until we have thought about the consequences rather more.
Our most obvious and unique characteristic is that we are elected to serve for a whole Parliament, no more and no less. It would be more in keeping with that fact and our status if we set our salary for the whole of a new Parliament just before the dissolution of the previous one,

with no basket of public sector salaries or three-year reviews to give us increases in between. In that way former Members and new candidates could face the electorate with a known figure for remuneration until they faced the electorate again. That would be much healthier and much more suitable for elected representatives.
I know that my suggestion will not be popular with many of my colleagues but I believe that we should start again in Committee, and quickly, to settle the matter before the next election. We should settle it ourselves and not look outside for guidance, save for advice, facts and professional information that we choose to take into account.

Mr. Peter Shore: This is a thoroughly disagreeable subject for us all. The sooner that we can get our pay linked sensibly to an outside comparator that will automatically adjust our salaries to take into account the cost of living and other factors, the better it will be for us all.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, we are in a period when public opinion is hostile to Members and cynical about our motivations and activities. In such a climate, it is tempting to lie low and do nothing to inflame our critics. That is the course of appeasement, however, and I do not recommend it. I think that we should accept the recommendation, as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) so clearly put it. Indeed, we should accept all the recommendations in full.
I am seriously contemplating applying for a private Member's Bill in the next Session. My Bill would require by law all journalists who write about Members' pay to reveal at the foot of their columns the pay that they receive as journalists and what their editors pay themselves as well.
We are, of course, embarrassed by this subject. It appears that we are in a position to decide for ourselves our own worth—a thoroughly disagreeable position to be in. But that is not what we have done. The recommendations that are before the House have not been brought before us by a Select Committee, having carefully examined all the relevant factors. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) suggested that that would be a preferable approach. Instead, we have deliberately put the matter before not the Top Salaries Review Body but the Senior Salaries Review Body, under the chairmanship of Sir Michael Perry. It is an independent body that was set up for the precise purpose of reviewing pay and other awards for those employed, as we inevitably are, in the public sector, although we have a very distinctive position within it.
The report and the findings of the review body were not just plucked out of the air; they were the result of a number of separate studies, as anyone who has looked at volume 2 of the report will know. First, Hay Management Consultants conducted a review to examine the various comparators that could be appropriately cited as giving some guidance to the weight of the responsibilities that we bear in this place compared with people outside. The consultants recommended that we be paid in the range of £43,000 to £47,000 a year.
Secondly, a questionnaire was sent to Members of Parliament, asking about staffing and the hours of work that they undertook. More than 400 of our colleagues


responded and said that the average working week during a Session was 71 hours, and that during recesses it was no fewer than 51 hours.
Thirdly, the review body asked a distinguished academic at the university of Exeter to conduct a study of the rewards received by Members of other Parliaments in western Europe and in parts of the Commonwealth. It found that, compared to countries of a similar size in Europe, we are paid less than German, Italian and French Members of Parliament. We are not paid as much as Members of Parliament in New Zealand and Australia, either. I think that it produced pretty conclusive evidence to justify the report's recommendations.
There were a number of additional points of interest in the report, one of which has been alluded to, so I shall do no more than briefly repeat it. The review body found that, following changes in the cost of living and so on, if we had accepted the 1983 award, our salary would now be equivalent to £42,300 a year, which compares with the £43,000 that the review body recommends. The report also contained interesting information about the previous earnings of our most recent recruits to the House of Commons. The 100 or more Members of Parliament who came in at the 1992 general election subsequently supplied the information that 61 per cent. of them experienced a drop in pay. Their average pay was £57,000 a year, and their median pay was £38,000 a year. That is pretty suggestive.
People are entitled to say that there is no lack of applicants for the job of Member of Parliament. I have no doubt whatever that if we were to halve our present pay—even abolish it altogether—there would be no problem in filling the House of Commons. The trouble is that the applicants would be people of a rather special kind—those with substantial incomes who would not need to worry about receiving any pay from their job as Member of Parliament. The question then would be: what range of abilities would they supply?
I should have thought it self-evident that if the pay of Members of Parliament were to fall far below what could be obtained in equivalent occupations outside, and if membership of the House entailed a drop in earnings, with the inevitable effects that that would have on the families of those involved, many able people would be deterred and there would be strong pressure on Members to take on additional paid work outside Parliament.
The work of a Member of Parliament has become, for most of us, a full-time job, and I believe that we should be paid accordingly. I do not think that the legitimate outside activities of Members of Parliament should be banned. Following the Nolan report, a Select Committee considered the matter carefully and, in particular, opposed consultancies involving paid advocacy. That is now a rule of the House. I merely suggest that legitimate outside activities should be declared, and that it should be left to a Member's constituents to judge whether, in terms of service to them and contribution to the House, that Member is performing satisfactorily.
I cannot think of any group of public sector employees whose pay has been reviewed less frequently than ours, and I know of no group of public sector employees who have rejected a substantial pay increase recommended by an independent review body. Following our rejection of the 1983 recommendations of the Top Salaries Review

Body, it would be ridiculous for us to compound that error now by rejecting the findings of the independent Review Body on Senior Salaries.
The Prime Minister specifically asked the review body for an early report. He has received it, and in my view we should now accept it.

10 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My message to the House is that it should show courage and do what it believes to be right, however inconvenient that may be. As many hon. Members have said, it is ridiculous for the Government to set up a Senior Salaries Review Body, with support from hon. Members in all parts of the House—including a large number of Back Benchers—only to disregard it with gay abandon. The right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) have done the House and the country a service by presenting such an excellent case.
I have been in the House for a quarter of a century. Every time the Top Salaries Review Body—or its present-day equivalent, the Review Body on Senior Salaries—has reported, I have supported its recommendations religiously, believing that experts have been asked by the House to rule on what they consider to be the right level of remuneration for Members of Parliament. We would be ill advised to disregard the recommendations of such experts, as the House did—with very unfortunate results—in 1983. We have heard what the level of our salary would be today if that stupid, irresponsible decision had not been made. I believe that it was influenced by a number of people with large private incomes.
I intend to concentrate on one issue—the car mileage allowance. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he was unaware that any statistics, such as illustrative vehicle running costs, were available from the RAC's motoring service. It may not be precisely the same formula as that relating to Members of Parliament, but I have here illustrative vehicle running costs from the RAC, copyright 29 November 1995, relating to all petrol-engine cars from 1,000 cc to 2,500 cc.
Having looked at the two volumes of the review body's report and its surveys and studies, I believe that virtually no evidence was taken about true motoring costs and maintenance. That seems extraordinary. [Interruption.] I have studied the report, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). The recommendation that there should be one standard rate of mileage allowance whatever the car, wherever the Member lives and whatever the size of his or her constituency, discriminates against Members who represent constituencies many miles from London. My constituency is only 180 miles from London, but other hon. Members represent constituencies twice that distance, or even more, from London. In addition, Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) represent large constituencies in England, involving large constituency duty mileage.
It is not right that the House should legislate to force people not to travel by car, which they rightly choose to do because of the distance that they have to travel.


They should be allowed to travel comfortably, to arrive rested and to travel safely on some of the country's more difficult roads and motorways. They should not be expected to subsidise their parliamentary and constituency travelling.
Under the report's proposals, Members with smaller cars will make a huge profit. Those with vehicles under 1800 cc will make a huge profit from the scheme, but Members who need to travel in cars over, shall we say, 2000 cc will lose out. I make no apology for the fact that I travel in a Range Rover, at the top of the range. I choose to do so.
I first bought a Range Rover when that company was threatened with takeover to show my support for what is the best four-wheel-drive vehicle in the world. Having bought it, why should I dispose of it? I am on my fourth Range Rover and I am proud of it. It enables me to travel safely. I arrive here and back in my constituency rested, and I work seven days a week for the majority of the year.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not the hon. Gentleman be even more rested and would not it be a little environmentally better if Macclesfield had used the railway?

Mr. Winterton: Yes. In an intervention that I have just heard—I will not say from where—an hon. Member has said that we do not have a station. We have quite a good station and I am trying to get it improved by the new authorities that run the rail service, but, unfortunately, the timing of trains does not make it possible for me to undertake the range of engagements that I wish to undertake and that my constituents wish me to undertake. It is not possible for me to travel by rail or from the excellent international airport at Manchester. I care to travel by car. I respect the hon. Gentleman greatly for his experience of the House. More often than not, another Member of Parliament happens to travel with me and the taxpayer gets damn good value for money as a result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name her."] I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
It is immoral, illogical and without justification to introduce legislation that positively discriminates against Members of Parliament who have chosen the right vehicle to travel to and from their constituencies, and to travel within their constituencies. Little or no evidence was taken for the report. I submitted an amendment that, sadly, was not selected. It proposed that the matter should be submitted to a special Select Committee of the House so that it could take proper evidence and come up with the right figure.
I am prepared to have the current figure reduced, although the latest RAC figures, based on its statistics, show that a 2500 cc car should qualify for a mileage allowance of 79.7p per mile. I would look to a realistic figure of around 65p a mile for the first 20,000 miles and a figure slightly below that for any mileage over that, but the current figure is without justification. It is immoral, unfair and positively discriminates against constituencies a long way from London. It could put certain Members in difficulty and in danger when they travel in all weathers, throughout the 12 months. I ask that this matter be looked at again. If it is not, I shall not be able to support the motion on car mileage allowance.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: The House would be badly advised to try to interfere in the married bliss of the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton).
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a dangerous suggestion. The House would be condemned if it continued to set hon. Members' salaries. That would be to go down the wrong path. I hope that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister will not try to make this a party political issue because, as the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, the matter has the strong support of hon. Members in all parties in the House. There is a strong feeling that we should put an anomaly right that has been with us for 20 years.
It is ludicrous that the House has fudged the issue in the past. In 1975, it did not accept the recommended amount, but allowed it for pension purposes. That lasted for four years. In 1981, we thought that we had caught up, but in 1983 we again fell behind and again fudged the issue. The review body was right to say that if its 1983 recommendation had been implemented and kept up year by year, lo and behold we would now be drawing a salary of £42,300.
After examining our pay against that of other public servants such as head teachers, police superintendents and civil servants, the review body recommends a salary of £43,000. There are 114 employees in the House who earn more than hon. Members and it is time that we put right that anomaly as well.
There will never be a right time to raise the pay of Members of Parliament, because the media will always be against it although, as we have heard, some people in the media earn more than Members of Parliament. I agree with the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), that when journalists criticise us in their columns, they should print the salaries.
I was surprised to note that we were criticised by Christine Hancock, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, and by David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. If a comparability study had been carried out among their members and an independent body had reported, I do not think that either of those two worthy people would have recommended that their members should accept less than the body's recommendation. I took the trouble to find out what they earn. I could find the salaries only up to 1994, and in that year Christine Hancock was on a salary—wait for it—of £74,262. For the same year, David Hart had a salary of £68,640. I do not think that we should be lectured by either of those two.
The review body was right to say that 76 per cent. of office costs relate to employment. I, and I am sure other hon. Members, object to the fact that the media lump in the office costs and somehow pretend that that is the total pay of hon. Members. It is time to separate that cost and it is also time to ensure that our staff, who are our most valuable asset, are paid the correct amount. I urge the Leader of the House to accept the review body's suggestion that further work is needed on the matter and to look at office costs, particularly the employment of staff. While we retain their employment, perhaps the cost should be removed from the office costs allowance.
If we again do not have the courage to carry through the suggestion of an independent review body—I am amazed that the Government are not carrying it through, having asked for the review—we shall miss a further opportunity, and possibly the final opportunity. The opportunity to put matters right and to bring hon. Members' pay into line with that of others could be lost, not only for now but for ever.

Sir David Mitchell: As many hon. Members have said, it is very difficult for Members of Parliament to be in the position of having to decide their own salaries. There is a genuine difficulty, in that I—like many other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate—do not know exactly what should be the right level of pay. However, I suppose that one criterion might be comparison with the status and salary of senior staff of the House. That is why I tabled a question, to which I received an answer yesterday, which revealed that 130 members of the staff of the House are paid more than hon. Members.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he thinks that the value of a Member of Parliament compares with, for example, that of the director of works. A Member of Parliament is paid less than the parliamentary director of works, less than the deputy director of works, less than the fire safety manager, less than the furnishing manager, less than the works manager, less than the quantity surveyor and even less than the executive chef.
Last year, I had a comparison made between exactly what the purchasing power of my salary was when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, in 1964, and what it was last year. The fact is that there was almost no difference between my salary's purchasing power when I entered the House 32 years ago and its purchasing power last year.
Is there any other profession which has had the enormous increase in work load that hon. Members have experienced over the past 30 years and which has had no real salary increase? In what other job is that true—dustman, train driver, clerk, journalist, newspaper editor, Lobby correspondent, shop assistant or civil servant? Name any profession, but not one has had no real increase in 32 years' service of one form or another.
We require an outside body to determine what we should be paid for our status and for our salary. We now have such a report. I suggest that it should be implemented for hon. Members and for scandalously underpaid Ministers.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I do not suppose that my speech will do my chances in the shadow Cabinet election any good, but I have heard that that election will be abolished to spare me the embarrassment.
I welcome the review body's recommendation to abolish higher mileage allowance rates. It has always seemed to me to be absolutely indefensible that, contrary to all the rhetoric coming out of this place, we have an allowances system that actively encourages the use of large cars—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has left the Chamber—at the expense of public transport. I hope that the House has

the courage to grasp that nettle today, because, if we do not, we shall forfeit the right to be taken seriously on transport and environmental policy.
I welcome the recommendations on the office costs allowance, and I shall vote for the recommended increase.
Unhappily, amendment (m), which I tabled, has not been selected. It is about linkage. We always seem to relate our pay to that of some anonymous civil servant. I favour—this should appeal to any socialists who happen to be present—linking it to the state pension, so that we irrevocably link future increases to the fortunes of the less prosperous of our constituents rather than to some anonymous civil servant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said that we should not fudge the issue of wages. I am not in favour of fudging it, either. I am totally opposed to any rise above the rate of inflation. The issue is not whether we are underpaid for the job that we do—there are many opinions about that—but whether our pay is so inadequate that we constitute a special case, entitled to exemption from the rules that Governments of all political persuasions seek to impose on others. I do not believe that any reasonable person could come to that conclusion. By no stretch of the imagination are we a special case.
I do not accept any of the arguments that have been advanced by those who advocate the increase. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) argued that our remuneration has fallen below the level of the 1960s, or at least has not increased since then. That is nonsense. In the 1960s, a Member of Parliament was, quite wrongly, expected to pay for his own office costs and his or her London accommodation. Those items are now, quite rightly, covered by allowances. We are incomparably better off than we were in the 1960s, and we should not pretend otherwise.
I do not accept that £34,000 is a low salary. We are in the top 10 per cent. of income earners. We all earn more than the overwhelming majority of our constituents. I appreciate that that will be less true of those who represent the more prosperous areas, but the fact remains that £34,000 a year is a good salary, even in the most prosperous areas.
I have heard it said that we must raise salaries in order to attract better-quality candidates. The truth is that all parties are heavily over-subscribed with applicants for winnable seats. That is especially true of the Conservative party. If it was left up to the free market on which most Conservative Members are so keen, we would be paying ourselves less, not more.
We all know why the crisis—if I might call it that—has arisen. It has arisen because Lord Nolan has closed off some, but by no means all, of the opportunities that many Conservative Members take for granted of supplementing their income.

Mr. David Shaw: Stop writing the books.

Mr. Mullin: I have not written a book since before I was elected. Many Conservative Members take for granted the fact that they can supplement their income by selling their services to outside interests. Others may have climbed on the bandwagon, but that is how it began. That is why we are in this crisis—because of Nolan.
I can never recall seeing Conservative Members as upset as on the day that Nolan reported. One said to me, within the hearing of the catering staff—he was a multi-millionaire, so I do not suppose he has to worry too much—"No Conservative can live on £34,000 a year." Believe me, I understand. By definition, Tory Members tend to represent the leafier areas of the country. They belong to a party where status is everything. They rub shoulders every day with people who earn a great deal more than they do and, to put it crudely, in the past 17 years, they have handed out a great deal of dosh to their friends and many of them want their cut.
Some Tory Members take the view—[Interruption.] Tory Members are often seeking to put clear blue water between the two sides of the House. Speaking for myself, an ocean of clear blue water separates us on this issue.
Some Tory Members take the view that the nation should be grateful to them for taking the time off from making money to come and govern us. I do not share that view and—I suspect—nor does the nation.
I apologise for making a party point, but I believe that we are all being dragged into what is essentially a Tory crisis in the hope of giving respectability to a proposition that is utterly without merit.
There is a more serious point. It is not healthy in a democracy for too wide a gap to grow up between the life styles of elected representatives and those whom they represent. I believe that as a matter of principle and that, as far as possible, Members of Parliament should share the same sunshine and the same rainfall as those whom they represent. We already earn more than 90 per cent. of our constituents, and that is enough. There is no justification for widening the gap.
The Government are recommending that we support an increase that corresponds to the rate of inflation. That is the only credible position that any Government could take, and Opposition Members should bear that in mind. I assume that we are serious about forming a Government and that we have not just been playing for the past 17 years. It is simply incredible for members of a party that aspires to government to award themselves a 26 per cent. increase, while claiming to give priority to combating inflation and urging restraint on everyone else. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear that in mind when we come to vote.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I should declare that I have more interest in the outcome of the debate than most hon. Members, as I may become a ministerial widower at some stage. Having said that, let me refer to one or two points that have been raised in the debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) recommended that we ought to set the pay to come into effect at the beginning of a Parliament and that it should not change during that Parliament. I support that. Sadly, it is not one of the recommendations and there is no amendment that would allow it to happen. I believe that there should not be an annual pay increase for Members.
I also believe that we should reduce the number of Members and that during this Parliament—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Bottomley.

Mr. Bottomley: During this Parliament, we should pass a resolution giving instructions to the boundary commissioners that next time there is a boundary change—in 10 or 12 years' time—the number of constituencies should be reduced to about 450. That would give every hon. Member about the same number of constituents as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) currently represents. That would demonstrate that, although there should be a pay increase, Members are willing to accept—at the next convenient moment—a greater work load. We should also recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members already represent that number with distinction. It is not easy, but it is possible.
The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) mentioned the general secretary of the Royal. College of Nursing. She makes worthwhile comments, she clearly has administrative ability and she is the kind of person who could become a Secretary of State. Why should she have to take a pay cut of £10,000 a year, were she to be Secretary of State for Health, for example? Another example is one of the head teachers represented by David Hart. Why should the head of Holland Park comprehensive take a £25,000-a-year pay cut as the Member of Parliament for Holland park? It does not make sense.
I received today a bit of paper about the pay of the assistant director of housing in the London borough of Greenwich, which says that it is lower than pay in 24 other London boroughs. It is not the average or median pay, but below that received in other boroughs. It is £55,000 a year. Is there anybody in the House at the moment who has served as an assistant director of housing? Such people may not be put off just by Members' pay. There may be other reasons why they are not applying to be Members of Parliament.
Let us consider a director of social services who receives £70,000. I may not have met any Members who are former directors of social services, but that could be because the level of pay is not encouraging them. When was the last time that someone of lieutenant-colonel rank came into the House? I think that the answer is 20 years ago. When was the last time that the finance director of a medium-sized shire district council came into Parliament, let alone a grade 5 civil servant or a hospital consultant?
Pages 6 and 7 of volume 2 of the review body report, which, as far as I can see, have not been reproduced in our national newspapers and, up to today, have not been talked about by our national broadcasters, make the point.
When someone says, as a professor of community care did in a letter to me today,
I'm not sure that most M.P.s are worth the proposed salaries",
it might be better to improve Members of Parliament rather than cut pay. Why should someone who is a professor of community care not feel attracted to Parliament?
Let us take some of the people who comment on our affairs. I invited someone from the Press Gallery to come down to the Chamber and make his point about our pay. He said, "It would cost me a £12,000-a-year pay cut to do that." I am sure that being in the Press Gallery and commenting on our affairs is more important and deserves more pay, because those people have to listen to our speeches—at least when they are in the Gallery.
Let us consider what is facing the House today. Are we going to say that £43,000 is too much for Members of Parliament to earn? I do not think that anyone believes that. We should say to the Government—we can understand why they have to take their 3 per cent. line—that, in future, when a review body is set up or asked to report on pay or conditions, its report should be put to the House for a vote. Then, if they wanted, the Government could table an amendment to bring the proposal down to another level. That way would be more open and straightforward.
I recognise that the amendment that I tabled to the first motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which would have had the effect that I described, has not been selected. Nevertheless, we ought to be willing to say for ourselves, for those who will follow us and for those who will compete for selection with us, that we should set a rate of pay that is not a disincentive to parliamentary service—not one that would make anybody rich, but one that is worth while, which would encourage some of those in comparable jobs in the private and public sector to come forward.
A fair number of other points could be made. Many hon. Members can manage on present levels of pay. It depends on the family life cycle, whether one has a spouse who is earning and all kinds of things. At one stage during my parliamentary service, I faced the choice of going broke or going out. I do not think that my service here is that important by itself, but that choice is illustrative of the pressures on hon. Members.
Before we finish with ourselves, we should say to the pension trustees and the special fund that we ought to be encouraged to pay more in voluntarily, so that more of those who have served before, retired and may be experiencing hard times can have a better deal. We cannot put that burden on the taxpayer, but we could return to paying an extra 3 per cent. of the higher salary to a fund that can be used with discretion. That would be playing fair with those who have gone before.
My recommendation on the main issue is that we must decide between the King's men, the levellers, the cowards and the courageous. I think that we should be courageous.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by mentioning a point that has so far not been mentioned. It is appropriate for the House to thank the Clerks of the House of Commons for the extraordinary work that they have had to do in the past 24 hours on the amendments and the selection. I will not mention their pay, but I will mention that they were here at 5.30 this morning, just as hon. Members are on some occasions.
There are many occasions on which the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House can make joint recommendations to the House on matters that concern the House. I had hoped that tonight would be such an occasion. I had hoped that the Leader of the House would put forward a resolution in partnership with me, and that our joint resolution would solve many of the problems exercising people's minds this evening.
The matters that we are discussing should be decided by individual Members of Parliament, which is why Opposition Members have a completely free vote this evening. Several issues are being discussed together: the pay of Members of Parliament; Ministers' pay; pensions;

the office costs allowance; and travel. All those issues have one thing in common: none of them should be determined by Members of Parliament. My starting point is the fact that I have never believed that I, as a Member of Parliament, should determine my own salary; nor should we do so collectively. That important principle must govern our decisions this evening.
When the Prime Minister referred the issue of Members' pay and related matters to the SSRB, I was involved, through the usual channels, in discussions about the nature of that reference. Obviously, we do not disclose the details of such discussions, but it is no secret that the very last item on the list of what the review should cover was inserted, at my request, on behalf of colleagues. If hon. Members turn to the report and look at the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Sir Michael Perry, who heads the SSRB, they will see that the final point in that letter is that the review should cover
a linkage to provide the basis for annual uprating in future years without the need for Parliamentary decision.
That point is key for me and for many colleagues on both sides of the House.
I wish that we did not have to vote on accepting that independence. I wish that we could legislate away our right ever to make decisions on this matter again. That is not possible, but it is important that we establish for the future the principle that Members of Parliament should not determine their own pay.
At the invitation of the SSRB, and as shadow Leader of the House, I gave evidence to the review body. Some of the points that I raised have been taken on board; others have not. But whether the SSRB accepted or rejected the points that I made should not govern my decision on how to vote this evening. We should not try to cherry-pick the recommendations before us, because if we believe that we should not make that decision, and if such a reference has been made, we should accept the package that has been put before us, with all the recommendations, regardless of whether they coincide with the evidence that we gave.
The key section of the SSRB package and the report is not what it recommends on Members' pay, pensions, Ministers' pay, office costs or travel; it is recommendation 14, which recommends that a review mechanism be applied automatically to the salaries of Members of Parliament and Ministers. The decision to accept that this evening is the only way to get rid of the ridiculous situation of Members voting on their own salary on an annual basis.
It is important to consider all that the SSRB says on this issue. It is no use the Leader of the House telling us later that he will put in place a similar type of review mechanism, because anyone who has read the SSRB report carefully will have read in paragraph 13 on page 2:
We needed to find a new automatic linkage for uprating in future years.
The SSRB went on to identify the linkage that it recommends.
The key line in the document for tonight's debate may be the line that says of the new linkage that it will be effective only if
salaries are set at the recommended level
now. That means that, if we do not accept the package, we will not be accepting what the SSRB has said is the only successful method of linking pay to other


mechanisms that ensures that the House will not have to deal with this in future. If we accept what the Leader of the House suggests, this issue will return to the House time after time, as the SSRB report says.
We have heard a little tonight about the need for restraint, and I know that some Members have taken what the Prime Minister said at face value, but this is a very peculiar form of restraint. What is being suggested is a 3 per cent. increase, but it is 3 per cent. only six months after the last increase and only nine months before the next increase. I do not know if that is the message that the Government will send to public sector workers throughout the country, but I am pretty sure that that is not the message that they have sent out before.
The most important point to bear in mind is that, if we do not accept the package as a whole, we cannot avoid being told on every occasion that this is not the appropriate time to solve the problem of Members' pay. I have looked back over many debates in the past 15 years, and in every debate Ministers have said, "This is not the appropriate time. The problem will be solved in future." Here we are, in 1996, still trying to deal with problems that have confronted the House regularly in the past 20 years.
The Leader of the House said that the Government had put forward evidence to SSRB on affordability, and he said that that evidence was given by the Lord Privy Seal, Viscount Cranborne. I find it slightly surprising—

Mr. Newton: I do not think I said that, but in any case I said that the Government had presented written evidence to the SSRB on affordability. Someone had said that no Minister had given evidence; the fact is that the Lord Privy Seal did. Those two points are distinct.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to have the clarification from the right hon. Gentleman. He was asked from the Opposition Benches who gave the evidence, and I do not know whether he understood or heard correctly the question to which he was replying when he said the Lord Privy Seal.
I accept that, in other ways that have not been revealed to us, the Government gave evidence to the SSRB on affordability. It is certainly the case that members of the Government gave evidence to the SSRB. I have just looked at the list of those who gave oral evidence. Six Labour Members gave oral evidence, as did 12 Conservative Members, including three Cabinet Ministers, two Whips and two junior Ministers. The SSRB had the opportunity to take on board the views of Ministers, because at least seven gave evidence to it. It then came up with the report before the House.
I found the Leader of the House's statement on mileage costs and the rates that are available at the moment—he suggested that it might be possible to continue them—absolutely astonishing. I presume that that kind of statement leads to headlines such as the one that appeared in The Daily Telegraph today: "MPs must choose pay rise or perks". That is an offensive approach to deal with this issue. What message are Ministers trying to get across? Is it, "Take 3 per cent. and pretend that you have not had a pay increase, but go out and buy a large car and milk the mileage"? I cannot believe that the Leader of the House is comfortable with his proposal. In the post-Nolan era, this is a ridiculous message to send out to the community.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—whose name is also on the motion—has said that, if the Minister refuses to move the motion, he will move it and a vote will take place.
Every year since the last election, the Leader of the House has had to stand at the Dispatch Box and recommend to Members of Parliament that they vote for a pay freeze or that they vote for an increase double the rate of inflation, and that they vote for an increase in Ministers' salaries. We cannot carry on like this. The only way to take this issue out of our hands is to vote for the package that the SSRB has recommended.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Rowe: I understand that many hon. Members may feel that it is inappropriate for me to speak at this time. I have sat through the whole debate—and a number of hon. Members who are complaining have not. First, I repeat what I have said on many occasions when we have debated this issue: it is 30 years since I entered the grade in the civil service to which we used to have our salaries linked—30 years later, that cannot be described as the career progression of a greedy man.
Secondly, it is worth suggesting—as I did to the Senior Salaries Review Body—that a good comparator might be a fixed proportion of the average salaries of the editors of the tabloid newspapers. One of the things that affects the public interest in our salaries is the public's perception of what this place is for and what Members of Parliament do. What we do here is arcane to most of our constituents—they have no idea what we do or whether we do it well or badly. They have to make a judgment based on comments from Members of Parliament and the media.
I believe that we should accept the report's recommendations, but that we should also look seriously at how the House of Commons serves the nation in circumstances that have changed beyond all recognition in the past 30 or 40 years. The nature and the volume of our work and our relationships with other bodies—such as the European Union—have changed dramatically. The mechanisms for dealing with those changes are often out of date and do not function particularly effectively. It is time that we examined those issues.
I agree entirely with those hon. Members who believe that there are too many Members of Parliament. We should look at the numbers. Perhaps we should start rationing the number of Members of Parliament who come from the same household—but that may be unkind.
Finally, as we may find in the Lobbies tonight, I believe that the payroll vote is much too large. We have more than 150 first step agencies that are supposed to have substantially reduced the load on Ministers. In those circumstances, we do not need so many Ministers. I suggested to the review body—I stand by my comments—a perfectly satisfactory way of paying Ministers properly. I submitted that the Prime Minister could have a lump sum at his disposal from which he could pay Ministers. The more Ministers there were, the smaller their salaries would be and vice versa. That would cut the payroll vote and would work to our advantage.

Mr. Newton: Even without being prompted, I have got the message that the House wishes to move to a vote. Therefore, I shall make only three quick points.
First, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to the fact that paragraph 25 of the report says specifically that the Government submitted general evidence on the affordability issue. Secondly, the hon. Lady knows that I have made every effort in the past four years to establish and to preserve an automatic linkage. I think that the basket that our proposals establish tonight—even with the 3 per cent.—is capable of preserving, and should preserve, a workable linkage with the basket of civil service salaries.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Leader of the House must acknowledge that the SSRB says specifically that the linkage will not work unless we start it at the right salary point.

Mr. Newton: I must admit that I am puzzled about that. A linkage should work—I think that this one will work—whatever the level of pay. The level is one point and the speed with which it increases is another.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I have not had an opportunity to speak before now. Paragraph 25 of the report states:
If, for example, the Government wishes to constrain the movement of Parliamentary pay by application of the same criteria it has attached to other public sector pay reviews, it has not said so.

Mr. Newton: That is a different point. It was suggested that no evidence was given on the question of affordability, but the report says that it was.
Finally, I must comment on the propositions advanced by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury about cherry-picking within the package as a whole by those who favour the whole package. I point out to those with amendments relating to what amounts to retrospection in pensions that the SSRB rejects that specifically in paragraph 63 of its report. It refers to the undesirability of retrospective increases and states categorically that it does not recommend backdating. Therefore, I cannot commend those amendments to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 317.

Division No. 191]
[10.54 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Amess, David
Bowis,John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brazier, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bright, Sir Graham


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Bayley, Hugh
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bellingham, Henry
Burns, Simon


Benton, Joe
Burt, Alistair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butler, Peter





Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Campbell-Savours, D N
Lynne, Ms Liz


Canavan, Dennis
MacKay, Andrew


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maddock, Diana


Clappison, James
Maitland, Lady Olga


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Major, Rt Hon John


Clelland, David
Malone, Gerald


Coe, Sebastian
Marland, Paul


Congdon, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Conway, Derek
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Martlew, Eric


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Merchant, Piers


Cran, James
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cummings, John
Mills, Iain


Cunningham, Roseanna
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Moss, Malcolm


Darling, Alistair
Mowlam, Marjorie


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Mudie, George


Denham, John
Mullin, Chris


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Devlin, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Dewar, Donald
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Oppenheim, Phillip


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Ottaway, Richard


Dover, Den
Page, Richard


Elletson, Harold
Paice, James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pope, Greg


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Primarolo, Dawn


Faber, David
Richards, Rod


Fabricant, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Sackville, Tom


French, Douglas
Salmond, Alex


Gallie, Phil
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Gillan, Cheryl
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godsiff, Roger
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Soames, Nicholas


Grocott, Bruce
Spellar, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Spencer, Sir Derek


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spink Dr Robert


Hendry, Charles
Spring, Richard


Hodge, Margaret
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Horam, John
Sykes, John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jack, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Thurnham, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tipping, Paddy


Jones, Robert B (Wm Hertfdshr)
Trend, Michael


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


King, Rt Hon Tom
Walley, Joan


Knapman, Roger
Ward, John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Waterson, Nigel


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Wells, Bowen


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Welsh, Andrew


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Widdecombe, Ann


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Wilson, Brian


Legg, Barry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lord, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Michael Bates.


Luff, Peter







NOES


Ainger, Nick
Dowd, Jim


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Duncan Smith, Iain


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Allen, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Alton, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Etherington, Bill


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Forman, Nigel


Battle, John
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beggs, Roy
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Fry, Sir Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Betts, Clive
Galbraith, Sam


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blunkett David
Galloway, George


Boateng, Paul
Gapes, Mike


Body, Sir Richard
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garrett, John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
George, Bruce


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorst Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Graham, Thomas


Butcher, John
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Butterfill, John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gunnell, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hain, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Hall, Mike


Cash, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Chidgey, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, Sir John


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hawksley, Warren


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Coffey, Ann
Henderson, Doug


Connarty, Michael
Hicks, Sir Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dafis, Cynog
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davidson, Ian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hoyle, Doug


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Donohoe, Brian H
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)





Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Pearson, Ian


Hunter, Andrew
Pendry, Tom


Illsley, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Ingram, Adam
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Janner, Greville
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jessel, Toby
Radice, Giles


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rendel, David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jowell, Tessa
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Key, Robert
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Khabra, Piara S
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Sedgemore, Brian


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Litherland, Robert
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Livingstone, Ken
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sims, Sir Roger


McAllion, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McFall, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Speed, Sir Keith


Maclennan, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McNamara, Kevin
Steen, Anthony


MacShane, Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Stewart, Allan


Madel, Sir David
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marlow, Tony
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sweeney, Walter


Meacher, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moate, Sir Roger
Touhig, Don


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tracey, Richard


Morgan, Rhodri
Tredinnick, David


Morley, Elliot
Trickett, Jon


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Trotter, Neville


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Murphy, Paul
Tyler, Paul


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaz, Keith


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Viggers, Peter


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walden, George


O'Hara, Edward
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Olner, Bill
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Whitney, Ray






Whittingdale, John
Worthington, Tony


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Wray, Jimmy


Wigley, Dafydd
Wright, Dr Tony


Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wilshire, David



Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. John Home Robertson


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Question accordingly negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House takes note of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary pay and allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330), and calls on the Government to take any necessary action to enable implementation of the recommendations.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Amendment proposed to the motion: (t), after 'Government', insert—

'to provide that, in the case of Members of this House whose service in the House ceases after 1st July 1996, they shall be treated for pension purposes as having had a yearly rate of salary of 1:43,000 and'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 123.

Division No. 192]
[11.08 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Budgen, Nicholas


Adams, Mrs Irene
Butcher, John


Ainger, Nick
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Callaghan, Jim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Campbell-Savours, D N


Alton, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Ashton, Joe
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Chidgey, David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Chisholm, Malcolm


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Church, Judith


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beggs, Roy
Coffey, Ann


Bell, Stuart
Connarty, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Blunkett, David
Dafis, Cynog


Body, Sir Richard
Dalyell, Tam


Booth, Hartley
Davidson, Ian


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Denham, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Don


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunn, Bob





Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jamieson, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Janner, Greville


Dykes, Hugh
Jessel, Toby


Eagle, Ms Angela
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Eastham, Ken
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Etherington, Bill
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Jowell, Tessa


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fatchett, Derek
Keen, Alan


Faulds, Andrew
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Key, Robert


Fishburn, Dudley
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Kirkwood, Archy


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Knox, Sir David


Foulkes, George
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Leigh, Edward


Fraser, John
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Fry, Sir Peter
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Terry


Galbraith, Sam
liddell, Mrs Helen


Gale, Roger
Litherland, Robert


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Gapes, Mike
Loyden, Eddie


Gardiner, Sir George
McAllion, John


Garrett, John
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Bruce
McCartney, Ian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McFall, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
McKelvey, William


Gordon, Mildred
McLeish, Henry


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maclennan, Robert


Gorst, Sir John
McNamara, Kevin


Graham, Thomas
MacShane, Denis


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
McWilliam, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Madden, Max


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Madel, Sir David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maginnis, Ken


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marland, Paul


Grylls, Sir Michael
Marlow, Tony


Gunnell, John
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Meale, Alan


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Michael, Alun


Hampson, Dr Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hannam, Sir John
Miller, Andrew


Hardy, Peter
Mills, Iain


Harvey, Nick
Moate, Sir Roger


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Henderson, Doug
Mortey, Elliot


Hicks, Sir Robert
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Mudie, George


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hoey, Kate
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Nicholls, Patrick


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Edward


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
O'Neill, Martin


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Randall, Stuart


Hunter, Andrew
Raynsford, Nick


Illsley, Eric
Reid, Dr John


Ingram, Adam
Rendel, David






Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooney, Terry
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Touhig, Don


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Sedgemore, Brian
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnck, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Sheerman, Barry
Tyler, Paul


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Vaz, Keith


Shersby, Sir Michael
Walden, George


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sims, Sir Roger
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wallace, James


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Waller, Gary


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Whitney, Ray


Speed, Sir Keith
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Steinberg, Gerry
Winnick, David


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stevenson, George
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson, Mark


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Sumbeng, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Alfred Morris and


Sykes, John
Mr. Peter Bottomley.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faber, David


Barnes, Harry
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Brandreth, Gyles
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bright, Sir Graham
Godsiff, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Canavan, Dennis
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carttiss, Michael
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Congdon, David
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knapman, Roger


Corbyn, Jeremy
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Cran, James
Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Legg, Barry


Devlin, Tim
Lidington, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Livingstone, Ken


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luff, Peter


Dover, Den
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas





Lynne, Ms Liz
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


MacKay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Soames, Nicholas


Major, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spring, Richard


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Merchant Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mullin, Chris
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Pace, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rathbone, Tim



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Sebastian Coe.


Sackville, Tom

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made to the motion: (u), after final 'the', insert 'other'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

Question put, That the main Question, as amended, be agreed to:—

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 154.

Division No. 193]
[11.20 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Callaghan, Jim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Carrington, Matthew


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Ashton, Joe
Chidgey, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Church, Judith


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Coffey, Ann


Beggs, Roy
Connarty, Michael


Bell, Stuart
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Betts, Clive
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Blunkett, David
Dafis, Cynog


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Booth, Hartley
Davidson, Ian


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dowd, Jim


Budgen, Nicholas
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Butcher, John
Durant Sir Anthony


Butterfai, John
Dykes, Hugh






Eagle, Ms Angela
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Eastham, Ken
Key, Robert


Etherington, Bill
Kilfoyle, Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fatchett, Derek
Knox, Sir David


Faulds, Andrew
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lewis, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Forman, Nigel
Litherland, Robert


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAllion, John


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fraser, John
McKelvey, William


Fry, Sir Peter
McLeish, Henry


Fyfe, Maria
Maclennan, Robert


Gale, Roger
McNamara, Kevin


Galloway, George
MacShane, Denis


Gapes, Mike
McWilliam, John


Gardiner, Sir George
Madden, Max


Garrett, John
Madel, Sir David


George, Bruce
Maginnis, Ken


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marek, Dr John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Gorst, Sir John
Meacher, Michael


Graham, Thomas
Meale, Alan


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Grylls, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gunnell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred


Hamilton, Fit Hon Sir Archibald
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Murphy, Paul


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hawksley, Warren
O'Hara, Edward


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme Rt Hon Stanley


Hicks, Sir Robert
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Pendry, Tom


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoey, Kate
Pike, Peter L


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoon, Geoffrey
Radice, Giles


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Raynsford, Nick


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rooney, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jamieson, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Janner, Greville
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Sedgemore, Brian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn Yns Mon
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Jowell, Tessa
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Keen, Alan
Sims, Sir Roger





Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Twinn, Dr. Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Vaz, Keith


Soley, Clive
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Sir Keith
Walden, George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Steen, Anthony
Wallace, James


Steinberg, Gerry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, Allan
Whitney, Ray


Stott, Roger
Whittingdale, John


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sweeney, Walter
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Worthington, Tony


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Touhig, Don
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. John Home Robertson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Elletson, Harold


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alton, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faber, David


Austin-Walker, John
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bayley, Hugh
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bowis, John
Godsiff, Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Sir Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burt, Alistair
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Horam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cann, Jamie
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Jack, Michael


Clappison, James
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Congdon, David
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Corbyn, Jeremy
Khabra, Piara S


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cummings, John
Knapman, Roger


Cunningham, Roseanna
Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Devlin, Tim
Lidington, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Livingstone, Ken


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael






Loyden, Eddie
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Luff, Peter
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Rowlands, Ted


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


McAvoy, Thomas
Sackville, Tom


McCartney, Ian
Salmond, Alex


MacKay, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maddock, Diana
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spellar, John


Major, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Sykes, John


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Morris, Estelle (B'harn Yardley)
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Olner, Bill
Walley, Joan


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Welsh, Andrew


Pearson, Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Pope, Greg
Wood, Timothy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rendel, David
Mr. Derek Conway and


Richards, Rod
Mr. Sebastian Coe.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary pay and allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330), and calls on the Government to provide that, in the case of Members of this House whose service in the House ceases after 1st July 1996, they shall be treated for pension purposes as having had a yearly rate of salary of £43,000, and to take any necessary action to enable implementation of the other recommendations.

MEMBERS' SALARIES (No. 2)

Madam Speaker: Motion 6 now falls.
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(1) In respect of service in the period starting with I st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the salary of a Member shall be at a yearly rate of £43,000.
(2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rate shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
(3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES

Madam Speaker: Motion 8 falls.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 2), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 49.

Division No. 194]
[11.33 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Ashby, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fisher, Mark


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barron, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beggs, Roy
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fry, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Biffen, Rt Hon John
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, Sir John


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hain, Peter


Butcher, John
Hall, Mike


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Callaghan, Jim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hardy, Peter


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harvey, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Chidgey, David
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hicks, Sir Robert


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Coffey, Ann
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hood, Jimmy


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Dafis, Cynog
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Davidson, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hoyle, Doug


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Donohoe, Brian H
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dowd, Jim
Hunter, Andrew


Dunn, Bob
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)






Jamieson, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Janner, Greville
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Rooker, Jeff


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jowell, Tessa
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Keen, Alan
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Kelleft-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Sir Roger


Knox, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terry
Speed, Sir Keith


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McFall, John
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stevenson, George


McLeish, Henry
Stewart, Allan


Maclennan, Robert
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Madel, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Maginnis, Ken
Sweeney, Walter


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Meale, Alan
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Michael, Alun
Touhig, Don


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Miller, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tyler, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Vaz, Keith


Morley, Elliot
Viggers, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Walden George


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whittingdale, John


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Dafydd


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilkinson, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pawsey, James
Wilshire, David


Pendry, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Pickthall, Colin
Wolfson, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Worthington, Tony


Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Wright, Dr Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce
Yeo, Tim


Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Randall, Stuart



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Reid, Dr John
Mr. John Home Robertson.




NOES


Alton, David
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Carttiss, Michael



Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks,Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Roseanna


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Andrew F
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell-Savours, D N
Flynn, Paul





Godman, Dr Norman A
Porter, David (Waveney)


Godsiff, Roger
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gordon, Mildred
Rendel, David


Hanson, David
Rowlands, Ted


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Skinner, Dennis


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spellar, John


Khabra, Piara S
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAvoy, Thomas
Tipping, Paddy


McCartney, Ian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert N


Maddock, Diana
Welsh, Andrew


Marlow, Tony



Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. John Austin-Walker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Motion 10 on parliamentary pensions now falls.

CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question put,

That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys—

(a) by Members, or
(b) by spouses or persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance is payable—

(1) In respect of journeys commenced in the year starting with 1st April 1997, the allowance shall be payable to any Member at the higher rate up to a total of 20,000 miles and at the lower rate thereafter.

(2) The higher rate is 47.2 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.

(3) The lower rate is 21.7 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.

(4) For each subsequent year starting with 1st April, the rates shall be increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.

(5) The rates shall be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny (with exactly one twentieth being rounded up).

(6) Arrangements shall be made by the Fees Office for ensuring that claims are supported by appropriate particulars.

(7) In this Resolution "the retail price index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).—[Mr. Ottaway.]

The House divided: Ayes 376, Noes 39.

Division No. 195]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Austin-Walker, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Allen, Graham
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alton, David
Barnes, Harry


Amess, David
Barron, Kevin






Bates, Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Elletson, Harold


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bennett, Andrew F
Faber, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Berry, Roger
Faulds, Andrew


Betts, Clive
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fisher, Mark


Boswell, Tim
Flynn, Paul


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Sr Andrew
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bowis, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Keith
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John


Bright, Sir Graham
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gallie, Phil


Burns, Simon
Gapes, Mike


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gillan, Cheryl


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, D N
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mildred


Cann, Jamie
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gorst Sir John


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant Bernie (Tottenham)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clappison, James
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hall, Mike


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coffey, Ann
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hanson, David


Conway, Derek
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harvey, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heald, Oliver


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Henderson, Doug


Cousins, Jim
Hendry, Charles


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cummings, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hodge, Margaret


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hoey, Kate


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Dafis, Cynog
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Dalyell, Tam
Hood, Jimmy


Davidson, Ian
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Horam, John


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Denham, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Devlin, Tim
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Dewar, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dixon, Don
Hoyle, Doug


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dowd, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dunn, Bob
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)





Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Moate, Sir Roger


Jack, Michael
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Jessel, Toby
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Moss, Malcolm


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mudie, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Murphy, Paul


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Jowell, Tessa
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Keen, Alan
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
O'Hara, Edward


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Olner, Bill


Key, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Khabra, Piara S
Orme, Rt Hon. Stanley


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ottaway, Richard


Kirkwood, Archy
Page, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Paice, James


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Pawsey, James


Knight Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Pearson, Ian


Knox, Sir David
Pickthall, Colin


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Pike, Peter L


Lamont Rt Hon Norman
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Randall, Stuart


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rathbone, Tim


Lidington, David
Raynsford, Nick


Litherland, Robert
Reid, Dr John


Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Luff, Peter
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McCartney, Ian
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Macdonald, Calum
Rowlands, Ted


McFall, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Tom


MacKay, Andrew
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


McLeish, Henry
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maclennan, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


McNamara, Kevin
Shersby, Sir Michael


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maddock, Diana
Simpson, Alan


Madel, Sir David
Sims, Sir Roger


Maginnis, Ken
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maitland, Lady Olga
Skinner, Dennis


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Tony
Soames, Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Speed, Sir Keith


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Meacher, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Meale, Alan
Spring, Richard


Merchant Piers
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michael, Alun
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Miller, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stevenson, George






Stewart, Allan
Walden, George


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Straw, Jack
Wallace, James


Sumberg, David
Waller, Gary


Sykes, John
Walley, Joan


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Timms, Stephen
Wigley, Dafydd


Tipping, Paddy
Wilkinson, John


Touhig, Don
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilshire, David


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilson, Brian


Tracey, Richard
Wise, Audrey


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Dr Tony


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tyler, Paul
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mr. John Home Robertson.




NOES


Ashby, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
McWilliam, John


Booth, Hartley
Marland, Paul


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Nicholls, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
O'Neill, Martin


Budgen, Nicholas
Pendry, Tom


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Carttiss, Michael
Richards, Rod


Cash william
Rooney, Terry


Clapham, Michael
Spellar John



Stern, Michael


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Sweeney, Walter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Wareing, Robert N


Foulkes, George
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Galloway, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Hawksley, Warren
Tellers for the Noes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Nicholas Winterton and


Illsley, Eric
 Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

OFFICE COSTS ALLOWANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the limit on the Office Costs Allowance—

(1) The limit for any quarter in the year starting with 1st April 1997 should be £11,591 increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.

(2) For any quarter in each subsequent year starting with 1st April the limit should be the limit for a quarter in the previous year increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.

(3) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).

(4) The limit in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant should be 1.33 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (I) or (2).

(5) The limit should be calculated to the nearest pound (with exactly 50 pence being rounded up).

(6) In this Resolution—

(a) "quarter" means a period of three months starting with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January; and
(b) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).—[Mr. Bates.]

Amendment proposed to the motion: (rr), in paragraph (1), leave out '1997' and insert '1996'.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 189.

Division No. 196]
[11.57 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Denham, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Donohoe, Brian H


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dowd, Jim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Alton, David
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eastham, Ken


Ashby, David
Etherington, Bill


Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fatchett, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Faulds, Andrew


Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bendall, Vivian
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Gallie. Phil


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Berry, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Betts, Clive
Garrett, John


Blunkett, David
George, Bruce


Booth, Hartley
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gordon, Mildred


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harvey, Nick


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hodge, Margaret


Chidgey, David
Hoey, Kate


Clapham, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coffey, Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cummings, John
Hunter, Andrew


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Janner, Greville


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)






Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Keen, Alan
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pod Br'dg'n)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


Leigh, Edward
Randall, Stuart


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


McAllion, John
Salmond, Alex


McAvoy, Thomas
Shaw, David (Dover)


McCartney, Ian
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spellar, John


Maddock, Diana
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maginnis, Ken
Stern, Michael


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stewart Allan


Marland, Paul
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Sutcliffe Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Meale, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Touhig, Don


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Trickett, Jon


Miller, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Vaz, Keith


Moate, Sir Roger
Wallace, James


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Joan


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wise, Audrey


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, Bill
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Pearson, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pendry, Tom
Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. John Austin-Walker.


Pickthall, Colin





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Allen, Graham
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butter, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Churchill, Mr


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bright, Sir Graham
Cran, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)





Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
McLeish, Henry


Dalyell, Tam
Maclennan, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dobson, Frank
Madel, Sir David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maitland, Lady Olga


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Major, Rt Hon John


Elletson, Harold
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Merchant, Piers


Faber, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fabricant, Michael
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Foster, Don (Bath)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Oppenheim, Philip


French, Douglas
Ottaway, Richard


Fry, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Gardiner, Sir George
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pawsey, James


Gillan, Cheryl
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Rathbone, Tim


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Sackville, Tom


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Hannam, Sir John
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Shersby, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Sims, Sir Roger


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Henderson, Doug
Speed, Sir Keith


Hendry, Charles
Spencer, Sir Derek


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Spink, Dr Robert


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Spring, Richard


Horam John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Steen, Anthony


Howell Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Steinberg, Gerry



Strang, Dr. Gavin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Straw, Jack


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sumberg, David


Jack, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Jessel, Toby
Sykes.John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jowell, Tessa
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


King, Rt Hon Tom
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kirkwood, Archy
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Knapman, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trend, Michael


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Trotter, Neville


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Knox, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Walden, George


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Waller, Gary


Lidington, David
Ward, John


Luff, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


MacKay, Andrew
Whittingdale, John






Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the limit on the Office Costs Allowance—

(1) The limit for any quarter in the year starting with 1st April 1996 should be £11,591 increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.

(2) For any quarter in each subsequent year starting with 1st April the limit should be the limit for a quarter in the previous year increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.

(3) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).

(4) The limit in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant should be 1.33 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).

(5) The limit should be calculated to the nearest pound (with exactly 50 pence being rounded up).

(6) In this Resolution

(a) "quarter" means a period of three months starting with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January; and
(b) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).

Royal Yacht

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Perhaps we could move into calmer waters and discuss—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Members must leave the Chamber quietly. Business remains before the House. The hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate must be heard.

Mr. Townsend: I wish to discuss the subject of a future royal yacht. I last secured an Adjournment debate on the topic in December 1994. In 1980, I initiated a debate on the Queen's flight. I acknowledge that they are different matters, but there is a common starting point, which is that time is overtaking equipment in the royal service.
I begin on a critical note. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am appalled that the Government seem to be unwilling or unable to make up their mind on a future royal yacht. Pass the parcel is being played in Whitehall and basic decisions are not being taken. It has reached the stage at which some of us feel that the file has been put in the too difficult category and that Whitehall will fail to make up its mind this side of the general election. That would be shameful. Surely a Conservative Government can decide whether there should or should not be a royal yacht.
If plans for a future royal yacht have been abandoned, as has been suggested in several press reports, tonight is the time surely for the House to be so informed. To support my criticism, I remind the House that it was as long ago as 23 June 1994, 25 months ago, that the then Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement about the future of Britannia in a written answer. He promised then that a further statement would be made, but even after prompting it has still not been made.
The House will be familiar with the basic facts. Britannia was launched on the Clyde in 1953. It has travelled well over 1 million miles, serving as a secure residence in an age of international terrorism. It has provided a splendid setting for official entertainment, promoting in great style Britain's many and various commercial interests abroad.
During the Conservative leadership contest last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested a further refit. I discussed the matter with him this evening and that is still his view. A refit, however, would cost an estimated £17 million and would prolong Britannia's life for only another five years. We are told that she would need new engines and much new machinery. Even then, she would be difficult to maintain and expensive to run. Reluctantly, I must support the decision to decommission her next year. It would be interesting to know exactly when that will take place.
Let us take a moment to pay tribute to Britannia's past and present crews. Britannia has been an important national centre of excellence. Her crew has been composed, from the captain to the newest and most junior rating, of carefully selected, dedicated and highly professional individuals. We need to hear tonight of the


detailed plans for a fine ship's company. I like to think that all members of it have been offered new jobs within the Royal Navy.
The Government correctly believe that after 1997 Britannia should serve a useful purpose while never again going to sea. I used my previous Adjournment debate to put forward strongly the idea that Britannia should be moored permanently off Erith in the London borough of Bexley. It would be a great attraction and would create interest and employment in an area of the borough that Bexley council is seeking to enhance.
Since my previous debate on this subject, Bexley council has created a first-class brochure that supports my suggestion and goes into further details. I thank the council for its most welcome support. I trust that the brochure has been drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Can he confirm that the Government are giving serious consideration to my proposal, which has much local support? Better still, will he back it?
Britannia has continued to be used for important occasions. Information can be found in paragraph 227 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996". Last month, the Prince of Wales sailed into Belfast aboard the royal yacht for a three-day visit to Northern Ireland, and the Queen Mother was on board off the south coast only a few days ago.
In Parliament, the maritime group, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), has taken a close and enthusiastic interest in the idea of a new royal yacht. In addition, an all-party royal yacht parliamentary group has been formed under the chairmanship of Lord Ashbourne, a former naval officer. Members of the group have called on the President of the Board of Trade, the Leader of the House of Lords and the Secretary of State for Defence. There has also been contact with a senior official in the royal household. Letters have been sent to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we are grateful for the encouragement of the British Exporters Association and the international maritime group in particular. In his reply, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed:
the issue of a replacement is still under consideration. The Government is, however, well aware of the successful role played by Britannia in export promotion activities … and of the value placed on this by industry and commerce".
The all-party royal yacht group is promoting what I regard a good, sensible and practical idea. Far from contemplating any form of royal frippery, we suggest that a new—probably smaller—royal yacht should be designed and built without further delay for export promotion. Royal duties would, in practice, be a secondary role. The Department of Trade and Industry—I welcome the Minister from that Department—should be the lead Department. I suggest that the reply should come from a Minister from the DTI. The Royal Navy, we believe, would wish to man such a royal yacht. By chance and skill, Britannia has produced an excellent working formula on which we should build, a key part of which is the panache that is based on the centuries-old tradition of the senior service.
The cost of a new royal yacht—it is early days to be suggesting a serious figure, but the papers have used the round sum of £80 million—should not be carried by the

defence budget, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be pleased to know, because its purpose would not be defensive. It would have no defence capability. Unlike Britannia, it would not be designed to be used as a hospital ship. Times have changed, and I am not convinced that, today, there is a requirement in the Royal Navy for a hospital ship. I would welcome my hon. Friend's observations on that point.
It would be up to the Department of Trade and Industry to seek imaginative ways to fund the project. The private finance initiative is clearly one possibility, and we have discussed that. Private capital should and could be obtained. At least one serious industrialist has proposed a consortium of British business men, who should contribute £5 million each to funding for a new vessel. What progress has the DTI made in that direction?
This is no pipe dream. British Invisibles, a high-level organisation representing some of the heavy players in British and international finance, has stated:
There is certainly evidence to show that Britannia has undoubtedly assisted in winning orders for Britain by attracting a top level audience of decision-makers who would not normally attend conferences at hotels".
This afternoon, I received a fax from Keith Johnson, chairman of the British Exporters Association, in which he told me:
Companies such as Rolls Royce Power, Balfour Beatty, British Aerospace, GEC-Alstholm, Siemens-Plessey and British Telecom have benefited from the prestigious arrival of Britannia in ports around the world to act as a focus of attention and flagship for British Capital Goods and Services.
Surely those big names would be able to make some financial contribution to a vessel that could benefit them directly for many decades. Perhaps Prince Charles could launch a high-profile fund-raising appeal to persuade British industry and commerce to invest in a new vessel.
I appreciate the Treasury's current difficulties with public expenditure, but the financing of a new royal yacht whose primary task is export promotion should be placed in the proper context. As a nation, we must either export or face economic collapse. For UK Ltd., exporting is essential; thus, spending at least some public money to encourage exports makes good sense.
Rear-Admiral Rob Windward, Britannia's former admiral, has been reported as saying of the yacht:
She more than pays for herself many times over".
He should know. In 1994, he informed a Portsmouth audience that Britannia had helped to secure hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of business for Britain, compared with annual running costs of between £10 million and £12 million. A modern royal yacht should have considerably lower running costs.
It is worth repeating what was said by Henry Cato, a former United States ambassador in London, who in 1976 found himself the US chief of protocol, charged with preparing for the Queen's state visit to America. He wrote to one of my hon. Friends:
I was literally besieged with people wanting invitations to the various functions that were to be held on board. Corporate moguls would devise outlandish reasons as to why they should be invited; society matrons would throw themselves at me. In short, that ship was a superb tool for British industry and the British nation and to let her go and not replace her would be a great pity, sending a bad message to the world.


We are told that in the bowels of Whitehall—perhaps in the basement of the Cabinet offices—there are some officials looking into the future of the royal yacht. I trust that that quotation is pinned to their wall.
In a statement back in 1994, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
The Queen has made it known that in the light of changes in the pattern of royal visits since the yacht was built, she does not consider a royal yacht to be necessary in future solely for the purposes of royal travel.
My hon. Friend may recall telling me in December 1994:
The world has, sadly, become a smaller place, under the assault of the jet aircraft. An increasingly demanding and hectic royal schedule inevitably dictates that more and more be packed into less and less time, with a consequent increase in emphasis on flying to overseas engagements."—[Official Report, 9 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 592]
I have with me Britannia's programme for 1995. Royal duty days numbered only 36; it is clear that a high percentage of the time of a new royal yacht could be allocated to export promotion without causing problems to the royal household.
Incidentally, five of those royal duty days were taken up by the Queen's superbly successful visit to Simons Town, Cape Town and Durban. I recall unforgettable television pictures of the royal yacht slowly sailing into Cape Town harbour, and the excitement of the vast waiting crowd.
There can be no doubt that the Foreign Office appreciates and values the role of a royal yacht in projecting a favourable image of the United Kingdom abroad. It is something a little bit extra and special that Britain can still offer. One of the last major tasks to be performed by Britannia—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take this further—will be to mark the handing over of Hong Kong to China next year.
Many shipbuilders will be seriously interested in building a new royal yacht, once Whitehall gives the green light. I have in mind companies such as Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering, Harland and Wolff, Vosper Thornycroft and, you will be interested to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, Devonport Management Ltd.
The Government should opt for a vessel that would be a floating advertisement for the latest and best of British design, fashion, engineering and state-of-the-art technology. It would be a chance to remind our competitors not only of our centuries-old maritime traditions but of new, present-day shipbuilding abilities. British shipbuilding and shipping need all the support that they can get. I like to think that designing and constructing a new royal yacht would give a considerable boost to our most talented craftsmen and marine engineers. I hope that it will be a source of great pride to many people in these islands who are interested in ships, shipbuilding and life at sea.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that there is considerable support on the Conservative Benches for a new royal yacht that could vigorously support Britain's vital commercial interests overseas, particularly perhaps in the far east. I hope that he and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry will be able to accept the case that I have briefly outlined on behalf of the royal yacht parliamentary group and of many interested groups and individuals outside Parliament, who are in touch with us and who back our ideas.
Above all, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can expunge the unfortunate impression that, after 25 months of consultation and debate in Whitehall, the Government are still dithering. A decision is long overdue. I trust that the Government whom I support have the good sense and vision to make it a favourable one.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): May I start by trying to assuage any feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) may have that the Government are dithering? This Government do not dither. We come forward at the appropriate time with what I hope will be the right decisions, but this is not an easy decision. It must be taken not lightly or, as the marriage ceremony says, wantonly, but with much careful thought and deliberation, and that is precisely the position.
I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that, as I told him when he informed me that he intended to raise the matter, I have nothing much more to add to what I said when we debated it on 9 December 1994, although I wholly endorse and share his anxiety that a conclusion should be reached as soon as possible. I acknowledge that, throughout the House and the country, there is keen interest and much debate on the royal yacht's future and a keen anxiety that the matter should be settled sensibly.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, on a subject in which he has taken a keen interest. To my intense sadness and great regret, I have not yet received the proposal from Bexley borough council. I am sure that it is an admirable proposal. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have probably seen and read it thoroughly as it would be of great interest to you, bearing in mind the fact that there may be the opportunity for a new build in Devonport. Sadly, however, my office has not been vouchsafed that great pleasure. If my hon. Friend would be kind enough to obtain from the borough council a copy of its admirable proposal, I assure him that it will receive the sort of attention that he would rightly expect from the office of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
I feel a peculiar sense of déjà vu, as my hon. Friend and I, as I said, debated this subject on 9 December 1994. It is a pleasure to see present two keen royal yachtsmen from the Labour party—the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who is also a noted yachtsman. In Lewes, he has replaced my late and lamented friend the former Member for Eastbourne, who was known as the fisherman's friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes is known as the yachtsman's friend in that part of world.
I am pleased to debate this subject again at such an important time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath said, since that debate, interest in the royal yacht throughout the country and in the House has not waned. It is easy to understand why that should be so.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, Britannia has served this country with immense dignity and the highest distinction since she was launched by Her Majesty the Queen at John Brown and Company Ltd., Clydebank, over 40 years ago. In that time, she has travelled over a million miles and has undertaken hundreds of state visits, as well as visiting almost every accessible part of the


United Kingdom. She has served with great dignity and distinction as a royal residence and as a setting for official entertainment by Her Majesty.
Britannia was seen at her best last year at the time of the VJ day celebrations. Moored by Tower bridge, she was the setting for a reception that was attended by, among others, veterans from every Commonwealth country. Britannia has long been associated with such events and with the projection of Britain's unique image abroad. But she also, of course, lends her extraordinary prestige to the promotion of British exports worldwide. However, I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that he allowed the balance between Britannia as a royal yacht and as a vehicle merely to act as a promoter of British exports to get rather out of kilter.
Since the debate to which I referred, the royal yacht has represented this country across the globe. She has taken part in immensely successful state visits to many countries, including South Africa, Germany, the United States and Canada. As my hon. Friend said, the Prince of Wales used her on a most successful visit to Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother may be on board her now.
Britannia has also continued to support British exports. Since December 1994, she has hosted 18 sea days that were attended by representatives of financial and industrial institutions, all of which used her to promote the aims and interests of dozens of British companies. Tonight Britannia is in Amsterdam, where she will host another sea day. Although her programme for her final year has not yet been finalised, my hon. Friend may rest assured that it will be a phenomenally busy time for her.
As my hon. Friend is well aware, it was with extreme reluctance that we took the decision in 1994 that Britannia should be decommissioned next year. It would not have been sensible to run her on because although she is undeniably beautiful and beautifully maintained, she is now an elderly ship, built with 1940s technology, including steam-powered engines. She takes a great deal of manpower to maintain, with a ship's complement rather larger than that of the latest generation of Royal Navy frigates. All that consequently makes her difficult and expensive to run. A refit costing £17 million would have been required next year to keep her safe and seaworthy, and even that would have prolonged her life for only another five years.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: I must press on.
Furthermore, from my viewpoint as a Defence Minister, Britannia has not had a defence role since 1992, when it was announced that we would no longer plan to use her as a hospital ship in time of war. When built, that was the purpose for which she was designed, although circumstances never allowed her to be deployed in that role. It was a symptom of her age and design that she was no longer considered suitable for the role, and there are no other defence roles that could easily be combined with a ship whose primary task is to represent Britain overseas.
The decision to decommission Britannia also reflected the fundamental change in the pattern of royal travel. In the early 1950s, long voyages were almost invariably

made by liner and there was a real need for a royal yacht to enable Her Majesty to travel overseas. Of course, the world has changed greatly since then. In this age of jet travel, it is much more convenient and sensible for Her Majesty to travel by aeroplane to her destination and to join the yacht there. That is all the more important, given the very demanding royal schedule, which requires more and more to be packed into less and less time. Nowadays Her Majesty rarely uses the yacht as a method of transportation; it is used rather as a setting for state occasions.
Although the final decision to decommission Britannia was of course one for Ministers, Buckingham palace was carefully consulted in the process and Her Majesty made it clear that a royal yacht for the purposes of royal travel alone is not, in her opinion, necessary.
Bearing in mind Britannia's long and incredibly distinguished history, the Government considered very carefully the cost and manpower required to maintain her, given her lack of defence role and the changed requirements in royal travel. After careful consideration, it was decided that she should not undergo a refit in 1997, but should be decommissioned.
I should like to pay tribute to the superb work of the officers and men who have served aboard Britannia during her lifetime, especially those of the permanent royal yacht service. They are a very special company of men. Without their professionalism, dedication and brilliant skill for more than 40 years, the yacht could never have achieved the standards of excellence that have contributed so much to her success and made her unique in the world. The diversity of skills required has always been in the best traditions of the Royal Navy, and the future of the royal yacht service is rightly one of our key concerns.
Those men, once accepted, normally serve for the remainder of their career on board Britannia and, quite understandably, they are very attached to her. All yacht service personnel remaining in the Royal Navy in 1998 will transfer to general service and be given any necessary additional training. The yacht service will be disbanded once Britannia is decommissioned.
Not all the ship's complement are members of the permanent royal yacht service, and many of them are officers and men of the Royal Navy serving a single tour. They will follow their normal career pattern when they leave Britannia.
We are considering very carefully what will become of Britannia after she is decommissioned. We wish to find a way in which the yacht can continue to serve a useful purpose, even though she would no longer go to sea. Of course, that use would have to be in keeping with the dignity of her many years of service, and we are examining proposals.
I should like to express my thanks to all those who have offered many exciting and interesting ideas for Britannia, which have been received from towns and individuals across the country. We are still considering those proposals, and it would be improper of me to speculate on the outcome. I can assure the House that, of course, the Government will consult Her Majesty on what may happen to Britannia after 1997. Whatever the outcome, the Government could not let such a distinguished ship slip away without considering the case for a replacement.


It is a finely balanced decision, because a new yacht of the style and grace that we all expect could not be procured cheaply.
Above all, hon. Members should remember that, whatever we procure, it will not be Britannia. While a modern-design ship built with modern materials and the latest technology would doubtless be more efficient, it would still be costly to maintain, and we would have to be sure that such expense could be justified.
Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath, have highlighted the export opportunities and inward investment that Britannia has brought to the United Kingdom. The Government are particularly conscious of the importance of that role, and it is a central element in our considerations about a replacement. I can say that we shall give very detailed thought to the issue of trade promotion.
There have been many eloquent pleas for a replacement yacht to be commissioned as a means of providing work for British shipyards, as my hon. Friend said. I can assure those who make such pleas that, should it be decided to build a new yacht, clearly it would be built in a British yard. I am quite confident that it would be a splendid showcase for all that is best of our technology. That is, however, putting the cart before the horse.
Many ideas have been suggested by members of the public on possible ways of funding, running and manning a vessel. They have included, for example, the possibility of funding the construction of the yacht with private finance. The idea of a joint royal yacht and sail training vessel has been suggested by a number of groups, most

notably the Cadland committee. I should like to take this opportunity to commend all the individuals who made suggestions for their energy and imagination. The sail training option is one of those being considered.
I can assure my hon. Friend that since we last debated the issue, the Government have devoted a great deal of time and effort to exploring the possibilities. Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry are involved in the consideration of a possible new royal yacht. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also taken a close interest in the issue. The considerations are being supported by a Cabinet Office-led working group of officials from the relevant Departments.
The work continues. I hope that I have explained the range and complexity of the issues that must be resolved. Without the absolute need for a royal yacht for royal travel, which existed when Britannia was first commissioned, clearly the balance of arguments is much finer than it was 40 years ago. The Government must consider carefully whether the expense of a new yacht can be justified. I can assure hon. Members that a statement will be made in the House once a decision has been made.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter to the House's attention. I agree with him about the need to come to a conclusion as soon as we can, but it is a complex and difficult decision, and we must take our time to ensure that we get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.